I've mostly been ignoring this thread because I know what it looks like before reading it, but LOL to people if they're calling IseWolf22 a liberal. I would peg him Unaffiliated/Independent with a conservative lean.
Impeachment
65,357 Views |
406 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by RunsWithWolves26
It's possible to not support this course of action and also not be a liberal.
Regardless of what Iran did I don't think we should go in there. Not because they may or may not deserve it, but because the US lacks the stomach to do what it takes to actually win a war. Bombs were still falling and the democrats were already politicizing what Trump should and shouldn't do.statefan91 said:
We'll see where things go from here now that Iran has responded with attacks on military bases in Iraq.
Throughout history the way to win a war was to crush the opposition and break their back, until we are willing to do that its time to pack it in.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/01/08/republican-hawks-trump-iran-conflict-096233
""They had to leave after 75 minutes while they're in the process of telling us that we need to be good little boys and girls and run along and not debate this in public," Lee said of the group that gave the briefing, which included Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Defense Secretary Mark Esper and CIA Director Gina Haspel. "I find that absolutely insane."
""They had to leave after 75 minutes while they're in the process of telling us that we need to be good little boys and girls and run along and not debate this in public," Lee said of the group that gave the briefing, which included Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Defense Secretary Mark Esper and CIA Director Gina Haspel. "I find that absolutely insane."
Most countries have sworn off war crimes that were common practice through most human history. That's probably a good thing....cowboypack02 said:Regardless of what Iran did I don't think we should go in there. Not because they may or may not deserve it, but because the US lacks the stomach to do what it takes to actually win a war. Bombs were still falling and the democrats were already politicizing what Trump should and shouldn't do.statefan91 said:
We'll see where things go from here now that Iran has responded with attacks on military bases in Iraq.
Throughout history the way to win a war was to crush the opposition and break their back, until we are willing to do that its time to pack it in.
Doesn't have to be a war crime. Looks at WWII - In Europe we drove the Germans all the way back into Berlin/ Nuke for Japan, WWI - treaty of versailles, Civil War - Sherman's March through the south.IseWolf22 said:Most countries have sworn off war crimes that were common practice through most human history. That's probably a good thing....cowboypack02 said:Regardless of what Iran did I don't think we should go in there. Not because they may or may not deserve it, but because the US lacks the stomach to do what it takes to actually win a war. Bombs were still falling and the democrats were already politicizing what Trump should and shouldn't do.statefan91 said:
We'll see where things go from here now that Iran has responded with attacks on military bases in Iraq.
Throughout history the way to win a war was to crush the opposition and break their back, until we are willing to do that its time to pack it in.
I don't think any of those things were a war crimes. All were a means to an end and broke the spirit of the opposition.
Everything is too politicized and we are unwilling to do that to actually win a war now
Sherman's March would certainly be considered a war crime if it was carried out today. It's a clear violation of the 1977 Geneva Convention. Many actions taken in WWII would be war crimes under today's lens as well. People still hotly debate if the atomic bombings should be considered war crimes. My personal view on that one is that they were not as the Japanese located industrial/military sites in population centers (not supposed to do that) and there was no context for nuclear weapons at the time. But today, most uses of a nuke on a civilian city would be considered a war crime unless that country was firing nukes at you.cowboypack02 said:Doesn't have to be a war crime. Looks at WWII - In Europe we drove the Germans all the way back into Berlin/ Nuke for Japan, WWI - treaty of versailles, Civil War - Sherman's March through the south.IseWolf22 said:Most countries have sworn off war crimes that were common practice through most human history. That's probably a good thing....cowboypack02 said:Regardless of what Iran did I don't think we should go in there. Not because they may or may not deserve it, but because the US lacks the stomach to do what it takes to actually win a war. Bombs were still falling and the democrats were already politicizing what Trump should and shouldn't do.statefan91 said:
We'll see where things go from here now that Iran has responded with attacks on military bases in Iraq.
Throughout history the way to win a war was to crush the opposition and break their back, until we are willing to do that its time to pack it in.
I don't think any of those things were a war crimes. All were a means to an end and broke the spirit of the opposition.
Everything is too politicized and we are unwilling to do that to actually win a war now
IseWolf22 said:Sherman's March would certainly be considered a war crime if it was carried out today. It's a clear violation of the 1977 Geneva Convention. Many actions taken in WWII would be war crimes under today's lens as well. People still hotly debate if the atomic bombings should be considered war crimes. My personal view on that one is that they were not as the Japanese located industrial/military sites in population centers (not supposed to do that) and there was no context for nuclear weapons at the time. But today, most uses of a nuke on a civilian city would be considered a war crime unless that country was firing nukes at you.cowboypack02 said:Doesn't have to be a war crime. Looks at WWII - In Europe we drove the Germans all the way back into Berlin/ Nuke for Japan, WWI - treaty of versailles, Civil War - Sherman's March through the south.IseWolf22 said:Most countries have sworn off war crimes that were common practice through most human history. That's probably a good thing....cowboypack02 said:Regardless of what Iran did I don't think we should go in there. Not because they may or may not deserve it, but because the US lacks the stomach to do what it takes to actually win a war. Bombs were still falling and the democrats were already politicizing what Trump should and shouldn't do.statefan91 said:
We'll see where things go from here now that Iran has responded with attacks on military bases in Iraq.
Throughout history the way to win a war was to crush the opposition and break their back, until we are willing to do that its time to pack it in.
I don't think any of those things were a war crimes. All were a means to an end and broke the spirit of the opposition.
Everything is too politicized and we are unwilling to do that to actually win a war now
I agree with you. It's why we shouldn't get involved anymore. We can't do what it takes to win.
cowboypack02 said:IseWolf22 said:Sherman's March would certainly be considered a war crime if it was carried out today. It's a clear violation of the 1977 Geneva Convention. Many actions taken in WWII would be war crimes under today's lens as well. People still hotly debate if the atomic bombings should be considered war crimes. My personal view on that one is that they were not as the Japanese located industrial/military sites in population centers (not supposed to do that) and there was no context for nuclear weapons at the time. But today, most uses of a nuke on a civilian city would be considered a war crime unless that country was firing nukes at you.cowboypack02 said:Doesn't have to be a war crime. Looks at WWII - In Europe we drove the Germans all the way back into Berlin/ Nuke for Japan, WWI - treaty of versailles, Civil War - Sherman's March through the south.IseWolf22 said:Most countries have sworn off war crimes that were common practice through most human history. That's probably a good thing....cowboypack02 said:Regardless of what Iran did I don't think we should go in there. Not because they may or may not deserve it, but because the US lacks the stomach to do what it takes to actually win a war. Bombs were still falling and the democrats were already politicizing what Trump should and shouldn't do.statefan91 said:
We'll see where things go from here now that Iran has responded with attacks on military bases in Iraq.
Throughout history the way to win a war was to crush the opposition and break their back, until we are willing to do that its time to pack it in.
I don't think any of those things were a war crimes. All were a means to an end and broke the spirit of the opposition.
Everything is too politicized and we are unwilling to do that to actually win a war now
I agree with you. It's why we shouldn't get involved anymore. We can't do what it takes to win.
Cant take away their last breath no mo
We're all Red on the inside. Some of us are just Blue in the face, and they're sick.
I don't really care about either one.
Apparently there were complaints that the Ukrainian ambassador was keeping tabs on folks Seems turnabout is fair play.
As far as GAO...maybe he did, maybe he didn't. I'd have to do a bit more research on it. I do think its odd that GAO just happened to announce today of all days. Quite honestly unless i can research it myself i don't really believe anything that the government says until proven otherwise. You all would do well to have the same viewpoint as well
Apparently there were complaints that the Ukrainian ambassador was keeping tabs on folks Seems turnabout is fair play.
As far as GAO...maybe he did, maybe he didn't. I'd have to do a bit more research on it. I do think its odd that GAO just happened to announce today of all days. Quite honestly unless i can research it myself i don't really believe anything that the government says until proven otherwise. You all would do well to have the same viewpoint as well
Who was the Ukrainian Ambassador keeping tabs on? I hadn't read that? Was she also texting about "taking care of them" or things like that?
GAO said the same thing about Obama with the Bergdahl situation a few years ago. Guess it comes down to what it always does. If you like the guy, you defend him. If you don't, you try to use it as ammo against him.
On another note. You will never see a gathering of the most self righteous, crooked, lieing bunch of people then you saw today in the chambers of the Senate and what you will see until this crap is over.
RunsWithWolves26 said:
On another note. You will never see a gathering of the most self righteous, crooked, lieing bunch of people then you saw today in the chambers of the Senate and what you will see until this crap is over.
Until the Senate reconvenes in January 2021. Rinse, repeat.
Glad that this thing is getting going in the Senate today.
It's sad that this country has gone this far off the rails. A complete joke that sadly, will continue on for years and years depending on who is in power. The republicans will pull the same bull**** the Democrats are pulling now when the president is a Democrat. On a side note, if you want to know what is wrong with Washington, look at how many in the Senate were also there for the Clinton impeachment. You wonder why nothing ever changes? That's why!
Just tuned in to hear a little of this crap. Can someone please tell me what Texas has to do with this? I have heard this woman say Texas at least a half dozen times.
Maybe this is a good thing. Nothing gets done other than investigating the other side and leave the private sector alone. It's been a pretty prosperous 3-4 years.RunsWithWolves26 said:
It's sad that this country has gone this far off the rails. A complete joke that sadly, will continue on for years and years depending on who is in power. The republicans will pull the same bull**** the Democrats are pulling now when the president is a Democrat. On a side note, if you want to know what is wrong with Washington, look at how many in the Senate were also there for the Clinton impeachment. You wonder why nothing ever changes? That's why!
RunsWithWolves26 said:
It's sad that this country has gone this far off the rails. A complete joke that sadly, will continue on for years and years depending on who is in power. The republicans will pull the same bull**** the Democrats are pulling now when the president is a Democrat. On a side note, if you want to know what is wrong with Washington, look at how many in the Senate were also there for the Clinton impeachment. You wonder why nothing ever changes? That's why!
I think we agree on a lot of stuff, especially the last two sentences.
But...are you just okay with Trump leveraging the office for political gain and clearly peddling Russian conspiracy theories? Partisan politics aside...does that not trouble you?
Have you watched any of the impeachment hearings? It seams to me that Trump may run off at the mouth a bit much, but if you have a problem with a politician peddling conspiracy theories then you should want Schiff, Nadler, Pelosi, Schumer, and any of the other democrat impeachment managers ran out of town. They have spent the better part of two days talking about all kinds of conspiracy theories that we don't have proof of.GoPack2008 said:RunsWithWolves26 said:
It's sad that this country has gone this far off the rails. A complete joke that sadly, will continue on for years and years depending on who is in power. The republicans will pull the same bull**** the Democrats are pulling now when the president is a Democrat. On a side note, if you want to know what is wrong with Washington, look at how many in the Senate were also there for the Clinton impeachment. You wonder why nothing ever changes? That's why!
I think we agree on a lot of stuff, especially the last two sentences.
But...are you just okay with Trump leveraging the office for political gain and clearly peddling Russian conspiracy theories? Partisan politics aside...does that not trouble you?
^ive watched several hours of them and have no idea what you're talking about.
They are presenting concrete evidence and are seeking more evidence, but thus far the senate is unwilling to allow witness testimony or additional evidence. If this is a conspiracy theory, then let's have everyone testify and prove it as such.
They are presenting concrete evidence and are seeking more evidence, but thus far the senate is unwilling to allow witness testimony or additional evidence. If this is a conspiracy theory, then let's have everyone testify and prove it as such.
GoPack2008 said:
^ive watched several hours of them and have no idea what you're talking about.
They are presenting concrete evidence and are seeking more evidence, but thus far the senate is unwilling to allow witness testimony or additional evidence. If this is a conspiracy theory, then let's have everyone testify and prove it as such.
They could of had people testify when they were doing the impeachment hearing in the house and decided not to. That's on the House, not the Senate. If the house had "overwhelming proof" then they should be able to use that in the Senate. If they have to dig for more that tells me that they don't feel like they have enough as it is.
If what the president did was wrong why not allow the Republicans call their own witnesses in the house, why not allow Trump to have legal representation in the house to question the witnesses that the Democrats called, why did the Democrats question witnesses in private first where the Republicans weren't allowed to ask certain questions, why did Schiff have to lie about what the president said on his call or lie about coordinating with the whistleblower? Finally, why didn't the Democrats have any witnesses to what actually happened but instead have people who don't like the president and wanted to talk about how they feel about things?
There are two articles of impeachment. The first is Obstruction of Congress. How can the president obstruct Congress by exercising his legal power as head of the executive branch of the government? The legislative branch of the government isn't higher up than the executive branch of our government. They are co-equal. If Congress didn't like Trump using executive privilege then they should of gone to court, which would of been the correct thing to do. Instead Schiff, Pelosi, and Nadler decided to pull their subpoenas and then say that the president was obstructing Congress. That is a joke and we both know it.
The second article of the impeachment Abuse of Power. How did he abuse his power? Because he asked the Ukrainian president to look into Biden because he may be potentially corrupt? Since when is trying to root out corruption illegal? Biden is on tape saying that if a prosecutor isn't fired then the he is going to withhold 1 billion dollars of US aide. The same prosecutor was investigating Biden's kid getting millions of dollars from a Ukrainian gas company when he knew nothing about gas. That's sounds pretty damn corrupt to me, and you can't say that doesn't sound corrupt to you as well.
I haven't followed it closely but any credibility of impeachment was lost before this started when you had dozens of democrat congressman calling for impeachment on Nov 9th 2016. We've had nothing but political partisan investigations for years now. The investigations swing towards whoever has majority.
This dude gets it.ncsualum05 said:
I haven't followed it closely but any credibility of impeachment was lost before this started when you had dozens of democrat congressman calling for impeachment on Nov 9th 2016. We've had nothing but political partisan investigations for years now. The investigations swing towards whoever has majority.
1) Except that the DOJ is arguing the exact opposite of that. Trump's defense contradicts itself:cowboypack02 said:GoPack2008 said:
^ive watched several hours of them and have no idea what you're talking about.
They are presenting concrete evidence and are seeking more evidence, but thus far the senate is unwilling to allow witness testimony or additional evidence. If this is a conspiracy theory, then let's have everyone testify and prove it as such.
They could of had people testify when they were doing the impeachment hearing in the house and decided not to. That's on the House, not the Senate. If the house had "overwhelming proof" then they should be able to use that in the Senate. If they have to dig for more that tells me that they don't feel like they have enough as it is.
If what the president did was wrong why not allow the Republicans call their own witnesses in the house, why not allow Trump to have legal representation in the house to question the witnesses that the Democrats called, why did the Democrats question witnesses in private first where the Republicans weren't allowed to ask certain questions, why did Schiff have to lie about what the president said on his call or lie about coordinating with the whistleblower? Finally, why didn't the Democrats have any witnesses to what actually happened but instead have people who don't like the president and wanted to talk about how they feel about things?
There are two articles of impeachment. The first is Obstruction of Congress. How can the president obstruct Congress by exercising his legal power as head of the executive branch of the government? The legislative branch of the government isn't higher up than the executive branch of our government. They are co-equal. If Congress didn't like Trump using executive privilege then they should of gone to court, which would of been the correct thing to do. Instead Schiff, Pelosi, and Nadler decided to pull their subpoenas and then say that the president was obstructing Congress. That is a joke and we both know it.
The second article of the impeachment Abuse of Power. How did he abuse his power? Because he asked the Ukrainian president to look into Biden because he may be potentially corrupt? Since when is trying to root out corruption illegal? Biden is on tape saying that if a prosecutor isn't fired then the he is going to withhold 1 billion dollars of US aide. The same prosecutor was investigating Biden's kid getting millions of dollars from a Ukrainian gas company when he knew nothing about gas. That's sounds pretty damn corrupt to me, and you can't say that doesn't sound corrupt to you as well.
""The president's opponents, in their rush to impeach, have refused to wait for judicial review," said Jay Sekulow, Trump's personal lawyer, who is working alongside White House counsel Pat Cipollone on the president's impeachment defense. Sekulow also echoed law professor Jonathan Turley, who recently warned against "making a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts." Turley testified against Trump's impeachment during one of the House's public impeachment hearings.
Story Continued Below
But that argument is in direct conflict with the Trump Justice Department's own forceful arguments some as recently as this month that allowing courts to step into such battles between Congress and the White House would be an affront to the separation of powers. On Jan. 3, a Justice Department attorney fighting the House's impeachment inquiry said "unelected" judges should not be "refereeing" such disputes. DOJ attorney Hashim Mooppan argued that the court should steer clear of "a purely political dispute."
The defense actually seems to be that neither judicial review nor impeachment is appropriate. That's nuts.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/21/trumps-impeachment-legal-team-doj-101720
2) You are absolutely right that nobody should be upset about Trump worrying about corruption in the Ukraine. That is, in fact, something so agreeable that he would have surely enjoyed bipartisan support. There would have been no need to do things under the table or to involve someone like Rudy. If this was purely about corruption, then the White House should have no problem allowing witness testimony and documentary evidence to confirm that. If it was so clearly the case, then why wouldn't they just allow the admission of evidence and witness testimony and humiliate the democrats and prove this to be a witch hunt after all?
Trump's defense can argue whatever they want. It doesn't change the procedure that the House decided to ignore. The correct thing would of been for the House to subpoena the witnesses that they wanted to hear (which is their right), Let Trump claim executive privilege (which is his right), and then take the Administration to court. The House decided not to do that for whatever reason. That is on them...not the President.GoPack2008 said:1) Except that the DOJ is arguing the exact opposite of that. Trump's defense contradicts itself:cowboypack02 said:GoPack2008 said:
^ive watched several hours of them and have no idea what you're talking about.
They are presenting concrete evidence and are seeking more evidence, but thus far the senate is unwilling to allow witness testimony or additional evidence. If this is a conspiracy theory, then let's have everyone testify and prove it as such.
They could of had people testify when they were doing the impeachment hearing in the house and decided not to. That's on the House, not the Senate. If the house had "overwhelming proof" then they should be able to use that in the Senate. If they have to dig for more that tells me that they don't feel like they have enough as it is.
If what the president did was wrong why not allow the Republicans call their own witnesses in the house, why not allow Trump to have legal representation in the house to question the witnesses that the Democrats called, why did the Democrats question witnesses in private first where the Republicans weren't allowed to ask certain questions, why did Schiff have to lie about what the president said on his call or lie about coordinating with the whistleblower? Finally, why didn't the Democrats have any witnesses to what actually happened but instead have people who don't like the president and wanted to talk about how they feel about things?
There are two articles of impeachment. The first is Obstruction of Congress. How can the president obstruct Congress by exercising his legal power as head of the executive branch of the government? The legislative branch of the government isn't higher up than the executive branch of our government. They are co-equal. If Congress didn't like Trump using executive privilege then they should of gone to court, which would of been the correct thing to do. Instead Schiff, Pelosi, and Nadler decided to pull their subpoenas and then say that the president was obstructing Congress. That is a joke and we both know it.
The second article of the impeachment Abuse of Power. How did he abuse his power? Because he asked the Ukrainian president to look into Biden because he may be potentially corrupt? Since when is trying to root out corruption illegal? Biden is on tape saying that if a prosecutor isn't fired then the he is going to withhold 1 billion dollars of US aide. The same prosecutor was investigating Biden's kid getting millions of dollars from a Ukrainian gas company when he knew nothing about gas. That's sounds pretty damn corrupt to me, and you can't say that doesn't sound corrupt to you as well.
""The president's opponents, in their rush to impeach, have refused to wait for judicial review," said Jay Sekulow, Trump's personal lawyer, who is working alongside White House counsel Pat Cipollone on the president's impeachment defense. Sekulow also echoed law professor Jonathan Turley, who recently warned against "making a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts." Turley testified against Trump's impeachment during one of the House's public impeachment hearings.
Story Continued Below
But that argument is in direct conflict with the Trump Justice Department's own forceful arguments some as recently as this month that allowing courts to step into such battles between Congress and the White House would be an affront to the separation of powers. On Jan. 3, a Justice Department attorney fighting the House's impeachment inquiry said "unelected" judges should not be "refereeing" such disputes. DOJ attorney Hashim Mooppan argued that the court should steer clear of "a purely political dispute."
The defense actually seems to be that neither judicial review nor impeachment is appropriate. That's nuts.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/21/trumps-impeachment-legal-team-doj-101720
2) You are absolutely right that nobody should be upset about Trump worrying about corruption in the Ukraine. That is, in fact, something so agreeable that he would have surely enjoyed bipartisan support. There would have been no need to do things under the table or to involve someone like Rudy. If this was purely about corruption, then the White House should have no problem allowing witness testimony and documentary evidence to confirm that. If it was so clearly the case, then why wouldn't they just allow the admission of evidence and witness testimony and humiliate the democrats and prove this to be a witch hunt after all?
Anything Trump does would not of had bipartisan support, especially when it came to investigating a democrat. The fact that they want to impeach Trump for it is proof of that.
As far as Rudy Guliani....who cares. He was acting on his own outside of the FBI or any other investigative branch. There is precedent for that and Guliani has offered to testify with what he has found. Besides, after Comey, McCabe, Page, and the rest of the characters at the FBI i wouldn't trust them to do anything right.
Finally. You keep saying that the Senate should allow new evidence and witnesses, but you don't complain about the House not actually doing their job correctly. If you want to hear the new witnesses and evidence that the House democrats have, then call your representative, tell him that you want the House to withdrawal the articles of impeachment because they cant make their case on what they have now, and then start the process over again in the House. It is the House's job to do the investigation, bring forth witness testimony and evidence that they impeached the President on. It is the Senate's job to hear the evidence that the House actually impeached the President on, not to allow new evidence and testimony. If the Senate starts doing that then what is the House needed for?
Trump has had more bipartisan support than you think, for example on trade deals. The fact that he may or may not have had bipartisan support doesn't provide a good explanation for why he didn't just do this through standard channels. If it was really just about corruption, why would they freeze the aid in a manner that the pentagon warned them was illegal? Why not go through the proper protocols?
Ultimately, it seems like like you've already made up your mind. I suspect there's little point in either of us typing more.
Ultimately, it seems like like you've already made up your mind. I suspect there's little point in either of us typing more.
GoPack2008 said:
Trump has had more bipartisan support than you think, for example on trade deals. The fact that he may or may not have had bipartisan support doesn't provide a good explanation for why he didn't just do this through standard channels. If it was really just about corruption, why would they freeze the aid in a manner that the pentagon warned them was illegal? Why not go through the proper protocols?
Ultimately, it seems like like you've already made up your mind. I suspect there's little point in either of us typing more.
I would say you both have your minds made up.
Was Sciff's "concrete evidence" still 3rd hand info or is he no longer relying on hearsay?
That's actually a fair point....but that's part of what makes that back and forth fun for me. I'd be kinda disappointed otherwiseRunsWithWolves26 said:GoPack2008 said:
Trump has had more bipartisan support than you think, for example on trade deals. The fact that he may or may not have had bipartisan support doesn't provide a good explanation for why he didn't just do this through standard channels. If it was really just about corruption, why would they freeze the aid in a manner that the pentagon warned them was illegal? Why not go through the proper protocols?
Ultimately, it seems like like you've already made up your mind. I suspect there's little point in either of us typing more.
I would say you both have your minds made up.
Now he is up to misrepresenting the actual information he has.packgrad said:
Was Sciff's "concrete evidence" still 3rd hand info or is he no longer relying on hearsay?
If Trump's concern was actually corruption, then why did he only care about the announcement of the investigation, rather than the actual investigation?
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/sondland-trump-only-wanted-ukraine-to-announce-investigation-into-biden-not-a-real-inquiry?_amp=true
"The only thing I heard from Mr. Giuliani or otherwise was that they had to be announced in some form, and that form kept changing."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/sondland-trump-only-wanted-ukraine-to-announce-investigation-into-biden-not-a-real-inquiry?_amp=true
"The only thing I heard from Mr. Giuliani or otherwise was that they had to be announced in some form, and that form kept changing."
RunsWithWolves26 said:GoPack2008 said:
Trump has had more bipartisan support than you think, for example on trade deals. The fact that he may or may not have had bipartisan support doesn't provide a good explanation for why he didn't just do this through standard channels. If it was really just about corruption, why would they freeze the aid in a manner that the pentagon warned them was illegal? Why not go through the proper protocols?
Ultimately, it seems like like you've already made up your mind. I suspect there's little point in either of us typing more.
I would say you both have your minds made up.
And I would say you do as well.
What do you think I have my mind made up about? I'm curious.
Featured Stories
See All
Projected 2024-2025 Hoops Roster and Scholarship Listing
by James Henderson
IPS IN 5: Dontrez Styles Is An Ideal Fit For NC State's System
by James Henderson
TRANSFER PORTAL SPOTLIGHT: Mike James
by Jake McSwain
12:25
15h ago
718
DUGOUT REPORT: Pack Takes Series Opener Versus Carolina
by Daniel Wilson
Butterworth Walks Wolfpack Off Against Homer-Happy Heels
by Daniel Wilson
sharpman1017
COMMIT ALERT: Georgetown Transfer Dontrez Styles Picks NC State
in Reynolds Concourse
11