I don't know what you mean. They all look pretty joyful to me.
I would have loved it if no one came but at least Brady made the right choice. Family more important and even if that's unfounded speculation to come up with a reason as to not go, why put yourself front and center and confirm that you support the Orange dictator. Just my beliefs but I also believe at the same time the fact a few key people support Trump should have no bearing on myself as a fan. I view the team the same as when Obama was doing a great job in office.
This is why we can't have nice things and the custom needs to go. It's supposed to be a nice for the players. Go or not, but no pressure either way.
Are the people that are blowing it up really that important? I'm not sure it's "everyone"; just a couple of folks desperate for viewers/readers/listeners. Even most SoSH members seem OK with it.
Starting a tweet storm about inconsequential crowd size? Where'd the Pats get that idea?
I could care less what the Patriots twitter account says. I'm sorry that some people can't separate politics and football but I see this as a giant nothingburger.
Exactly. Why anyone would give a fuck as to how the Pats respond to off the field stuff like this is beyond me. To me this side show is all a tiny tree in a forest of amazing fortune.
To be clear, I'm with you. I wouldn't have cared if every player showed up or if nobody visited the WH. I'm not a Trump guy and didn't vote for him, but I also don't have this overwhelming hatred for the president like so many others on this site and everywhere else.
The tweets on the Pats official Twitter account may be unusual; but what the Times did was particularly egregious, and by attempting to make Trump look bad, they dragged the Patriots organization into it. So NWE was right to respond; what the Times did was borderline unprofessional.
Exactly. There is so much ammo to use on Trump. The NY Times doesn't need to invent more.
Oh for fuck's sake. Alan Branch once made a mistake so he forfeits his right to ever set examples for his kids ever again?
Why focus only on Kraft? Brady and Belichick are also friendly with Trump. If the President is to believed, Belichick even strengthened his letter to the then candidate so he could make better use of it on the campaign trail. Logically, you should think less of all of them, and maybe in fact you do.
.
Nobody dragged the Pats into anything. Nobody forced them to send 3 tweets in response to the NYT's bogus story. They chose to respond. If they hadn't this non story would be even more of a non story right now.
I hate this logic, it is the exact thing that made deflategate go... If no one feels compelled to set the record straight even on a Patriots Forum there is no wonder why the rest of the country has no problem buying hook, line and sinker that Bradys' man deflated footballs. If no-one responded to the NYT story with a counter argument everyone across the country would buy bad data. I'm baffled that a person on this forum after the last two years takes this stance frankly. Crap now I'm in this political crap fest of a thread taking away from a quick visit of the NFL Champion NE Patriots to the White house.
Since this is response to my post I'll respond then do my part to let this story die. The difference with Ballghazi IMO is this has nothing to do with football and does not affect the Pats in any material way.
And this post makes me think less of you. Not that you give a shit.
So because it wasn't "football" related, the Pats should have been cool with the mistake the Times made? I don't understand your logic. Yesterday was literally football related, it was the National Football League's Super Bowl Champion visiting the White House. The football team's owner was there. The football team's coach was there. There were 34 football players from the Patriots' football team there. You see the pattern here?
I don't want to get into hypotheticals and what I'd consider poor analogies.
It absolutely should be corrected - it's no different than any other false news or hot take - but I think the argument is that it's not the place of the Patriots to be the one to do that, at least in this manner/medium. I think there's validity to that stance no matter what side of the aisle you land on.
Ok. So he can't think that someone who did something else is a bad guy? He forfeited?
The Pats have been being used politically, regularly, by people in the media with an axe to grind since the election. You're simply factually wrong that they haven't been dragged into anything. The NYT published something false about them (while bombarding me with several emails a week about how important it is that they're around to provide facts, lest you think this is anything but a vendetta cum marketing bonanza). Tough shit.
Who determines whose place it is to correct the record? The NYT got it wrong about the Pats. The Pats knew how they got it wrong inasmuch as they were immediately aware that the Times had not factored in the staff. That a president that many despise is in office doesn't magically deprive them of the right to say "you got your facts wrong about us and here's how." I also find it amusing that folks are stressing that the fact that the Patriots used three tweets, thereby violating the time honored One Tweet for a Correction Rule, is somehow noteworthy.
