All_Pro_Bills

Hitler became all powerful because he was elected chancellor of Germany in 1932. Once he came to power his party leveraged their minority position in the Reichstag to change the constructs of the countries "constitution" and to grant him unlimited political power. Then the SS and the Gestapo rounded up and murdered, imprisoned, or exiled all political opposition. So lets fast forward to present day America. As I said earlier the Democrats want to change the construct of our system by granting statehood to PR and DC and stacking the SCOTUS with "liberal activist" judges. That would most likely result in one party rule forever. Perpetual control of all three branches of government and eliminate any and all checks and balances and give one party absolute power at the Federal level. Like a dictator, like Hitler. So who is following the NAZI script? Hint: it's not Trump. A lot of people need to wake up and realize this comparison is spot on and they're following the dictators playbook to the letter before its too late.

This cap site claims his comparable market value is over $8M per season. Seems high. I don't see the Bills going anywhere near that figure. https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/buffalo-bills/jon-feliciano-16854/market-value/

That kind of leads to a potential moral dilemma. Today its decided to "squash" a couple groups viewed as marginal. So whats to stop the powers ruling the system to move the fence in a little further and start squashing more groups or organizations. I'm hearing Megadeth's Symphony of Destruction in my head now. The other question is how far are you willing to go to stop them? Pass legislation making their ideas or organization illegal? Arrest people? Round them up and put them all in camps? Exterminate people? I assume they'll resist all that and fight back. Are you willing to go all in and put your life on the line to stop them? Or is the idea that law enforcement, the people the Democrats want to defund, are going to do all the dirty work? What if things get ugly and turn into an all out firefight in the streets. Are we going to enlist an Army of social justice warriors that are willing to fight and die for their cause? I know I'm taking it to an extreme but there is nothing to suggest we're not headed there without some leadership willing to compromise and openly address people's grievances from all perspectives. At this point we have none of that on either side. So I am worried.

Well for starters the desire to grant statehood to Puerto Rico and DC in order to perpetually stack the Senate. And given a conservative slant to the Supreme Court demands from the left to add 2 or more justices with liberal leanings to reverse that back. Both of these would push the political environment to a permanent Democratic majority and one party rule. So our "democracy" would devolve into something similar to Huessen in Irag where he got 99% of the vote in the presidential "election". President for life. A dictatorial democracy. Who really wants that? With no checks and balances. Truth is I grew up in a staunch Democratic union household but the leaders and objectives of this party are just unrecognizable compared to the statue and integrity of their predecessors I grew to admire. The core used to be the working man and women but now its victims and the pursuit of social grievances of all types. I could go on. I would prefer the addition of two or more political parties to give the voters some valid options vs. the pick your poison choice as presented today.

Moments like this is where I see the comic value in all of this political theater. If Hillary was a right-leaning or libertarian poster and she accused the Democratic Senators of conspiring to <fill in the blank> her account would have been suspended and her tweet removed for spreading misinformation and violating the code of conduct of the site. The fact it isn't just proves what lying hypocrites there are running the social media "ministry of truth". Whatever your political view you can't tell me with a straight face that I'm wrong.

Unfortunately the left's definition of "Democracy" is the majority's right to impose their views and agenda on the minority without legal or moral limits. The fact others don't share their vision does not equate to them being against Democracy. The primary concern of many is freedom. And I've come to the conclusion the liberal mind does not comprehend the concept of freedom. Their false belief in their moral and intellectual superiority that it gives them the "right" to impose their views on anyone that disagrees inhibits their ability to think critically and logically. Their behavior is equivalent to a spoiled and petulant child and ultimately they need to be dealt with in the same manner.

Yes I do lean a certain way. I'm against big government and the concentration of power in the central government. I am against anything that gives the state more power and control over the lives and freedoms of its citizens. I'm against using government threats of violence and imprisonment to force people to act, think, and speak against their own interests. I'm against using our men and women in the armed forces as cannon fodder and muscle in pursuit of aggression and wars that serve private interests but no real security or national interest. I'm against the growth of the surveillance state that tracks and accumulates all forms of communications and data on private citizens. I think the Federal budget should be cut 75% to eliminate the funding that gives them so much power. And I cannot understand why anyone who values personal freedoms, rights, and responsibilities would vote to give the government more power and control over their lives and sell their soul to that "Devil" for what is consistent with "30 pieces of silver" and the illusion of safety.

Agree with your insights. I view myself as a objective and impartial observer of politics as I don't have any affinity for either political party. So I think I can represent that impartial view you express regarding the defendant's political affiliation. In fact, I view the political parties as a single entity of one party rule. Maybe some things differ between administrations of one party or the other but for me it follows the 80/20 rule where 80% is the same no matter who's in charge. You can call me a cynic. If I was a Senator and had to vote on the charge of "inciting insurrection" or whatever the formal definition of it is I would vote not guilty. I interpret absolutely nothing said or written by Trump explicitly or implicit directed anyone to commit the acts of violence that occurred on January 6th. The House managers are citing terms like "fight like Hell" as evidence of some connection or cause and effect. Words some of them have used in the past. The record also shows many House and Senate members have used more incendiary terms than Trump did in their political speeches and statements. But in none of these cases do I conclude they were advocating violence or criminal conduct. No matter my personal view of Trump I would need to apply the same standards to his statements. And just because some extremists took to violence on the 6th does not imply anyone, specifically Trump in this case, is responsible for the actions other than the actors themselves. Unless we want to go in the direction of some sort of conspiracy theory or some elaborate and nefarious organization behind it all. But as none of the charges suggest this we can dismiss this idea altogether. To me the core issue boils down to a discussion about criminalizing political speech and rhetoric. And I would vote "no" to that.

If Trump isn't President the Senate has no authority to hold a trial. If he is they can try him. But he's not the President. And the impeachment articles were presented to the Senate after the buzzer sounded and Trump's term ended. Its not mix and match circumstances to get it to work the way you want. The issue is the grey area around interpretation of the meaning of "the President". But as I said in my original comment. It doesn't matter as 45 Senators voted that the trial is unconstitutional. Does anyone think a single one of them will vote to convict based on their belief the trial is illegal? 55-45 next week and game over.

If I recall the House delivered the charges to the Senate floor after the Biden inauguration. But reality is this: This is simply all politics using the Capitol riot event as a justification. We're going to hear about a weeks worth of testimony and "evidence". I think we already know plus or minus a vote or two on how every member of the Senate chamber is going to vote when it comes to an end. It doesn't matter today or next week how good or bad the House manager's case is or how good or bad of an argument the defense attorney's provide. Something like 55-45 for the impeachment plus or minus a vote or two for or against. With 67 votes needed for a conviction the vote will fall short. So Trump will be acquitted once again and he'll have another talking point to rally his forces around. Along with a couple weeks of outrage from his political enemies and media activists about how the Republicans voting to sustain did a disservice to their country. Like any of them were going to cast a vote in favor of any those Senators in 2022 Senate races anyway. My preference was to see this all play out in Federal Court. I believe that would be the most objective and logical place for a trail of a "former" President to take place. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts appears to agree with me. He made a very unusual decision to recuse himself and decline to preside over the Impeachment trial in the Senate. What that signals is its likely the court's majority opinion is this Impeachment trial in the Senate is unconstitutional as Trump is no longer the sitting President and they want no part of any Senate show trial. The Senate voting that their procedure is constitutional is no surprise. If they didn't think that they wouldn't hold the trial in the first place. The highest court might have a different view. In Federal Court the case would be heard by a jury of 12 vs. a Senate chamber completely immersed in political conflict. A prosecutor that would present evidence that passes the legal threshold and legitimacy tests that are ignored in the Senate chamber and the House indictment. The defense would need to present its case purely on the law without the aid of politics and the cover provided in the Senate. This to me would be the best and most legitimate place to pass judgment on Trump's guilt or innocence. Agree or disagree with some or all or none of what I say but other than interrupting a lot of daytime TV this Senate trial is DOA and is going to result in an acquittal and maybe next week we can close the book on Trump and move on.

I suspect his African-American teammates have a completely different view of things. Brady didn't beat Mahomes. As they weren't on the field of play at the same time at any single play in the game. The Bucs beat the Chiefs to win the SB. And isn't Pat's mom white? Something all those goofball posters might want to consider. I always thought the complaint would be February only has 28 days and since all the other months of the year are longer Black History Month is getting the lowest number of days possible.

45 of 50 GOP Senators agree with the position the Trump impeachment trial in the Senate is unconstitutional. On the grounds Article I Section 3 of the Constitution providing Impeachment powers to the Senate applies only to a sitting President. Assuming with 100% certainty all 50 Democratic Senators vote "yes" on impeachment they'll need 12 of those 45 to vote "yes" too. Does anyone believe 12 GOP Senators that concluded the trial is not "legal" will vote to impeach? So this is going to the same place the 1st impeachment went which is to defeat. On top of this proving a charge of Inciting Insurrection is difficult. It implies some direct control or instructions or command. Legal case study shows courts hold the burden of proof to the highest standards. Convictions are extremely difficult. In this case some highly subjective interpretations of insurrection are cited as "evidence". This case is flimsy at best and perhaps completely absent. This charge will go absolutely nowhere. Much to the displeasure of the left Trump is likely to escape once again. When this happens, queue the obligatory protests, outrage, and calls for Constitutional changes.

What annoyed me most in the AFCCG was that the Bills coaches upon seeing how it was being called didn't direct our defense to rough up and abuse the Chiefs receivers in the same manner. And dare the officials to call it on us but let them continue to get away with it.

Great players have the ability to elevate the play of others. For whatever reason, Mahomes didn't do that last night even though he benefits from being surrounded by highly skilled athletes at every skill position on the field. With the exception of Diggs, Allen does not. Josh just seemed to will his way to wins at times during the season. And his leadership attributes are clear. The team rallies around him and feeds off his energy. The team has assumed his identity. While the QB is the de facto leader of the team I don't see Mahomes as having the same leadership qualities. That's not to diminish his style, leadership, or play which is outstanding. But if I had to choose one going into 2021 I'd pick Allen.

The counter argument is the women is "hosting" the fetus/child and that although dependent on the mother for survival that organism is a distinct and separate living entity. And therefore, not of the "woman's body". I'm not advocating either side of the issue just pointing out a counter view for the sake of argument and suggesting the issue is not so clear cut as some might see it. The core of the disagreement on abortion is at what point in the 9 month gestation period do you consider the fetus to be a sentient person.

A former President cannot be tried by the Senate. Taking the view to an extreme, under this interpretation former Presidents Clinton, Bush, or Obama can be tried for "crimes" committed during their terms. And if this is true then all these lawsuits and charges against Trump working their way through the Court system should be thrown out and referred to the House for consideration of indictments. Only a sitting President can be charged and tried. That's the purpose of the Article/Section in the Constitution. But you have your interpretation and I have mine. I expect if the issue is pressed it will be up to the Supreme Court to provide their interpretation and ruling of Article I.

"Nothing is over until we say its over!" John Blutarsky Animal House (1978)

Maybe Zimmer drops to 275 and plays DE next season?

A more extreme approach might be to refuse to mount a defense based on the argument the legislative branch under the Senate has no authority to "try" or "impeach" a private citizen. Therefore, any legal actions must be entertained in Federal court under the authority of the judiciary branch. As the articles of impeachment were delivered from the House to the Senate after the Biden term started and the Trump term ended this position has some validity as the law is one part legality and two parts process. Article I, section 3 of the Constitution states the Senate has sole power over impeachment proceedings of the President. But he's not the President. So the issue may be destined for a Supreme Court ruling. And let's not yank each others chains here. The sole purpose of the impeachment is not to address some "insurrection" charge. It's politically motivated to make sure Trump cannot hold any office, or specifically run for the presidency in 2024. That possibility scares the crap out of the Democrats and many Republicans who want to see him gone. I really can't foresee that happening but I guess they figure if the opportunity comes along to prevent it why take a chance?

The Bush administration pushed the WMB narrative and everyone bought it, Dem's and Rep's alike. Officials like Rumsfeld and Powell testified to Congress about the WMD peril. Committed perjury but nobody was prosecuted or held accountable. No hearings, no nothing. Deep State 1, Truth 0. If it was Trump, an outsider to the Washington establishment and power that did this imagine the uproar from the deep state and their media shills. Along with this was the suggestion Saddam had something to do with the 911 attacks which was completely false. While brutal his regime keep the religious extremists under control. And contained the ambitions of Iran. The fact almost all the hijackers in 911 were Saudi nationals and the US government refuses for 20 years under several administrations to declassify or provide answers to questions surrounding the plot and co-conspirators in that Middle East nation says all you need to know about how much our government values its citizens. As a results 100's of thousands of Iraqi's died while millions were displaced. Thousands of US service men and women were killed, wounded, or left with PTSD. $100's of billions were wasted on destruction and war and sweetheart deals and contracts for well-connected companies and big corporations. Also, Iran with their natural enemy removed by America is now free to roam the region. A global refugee problem resulted. Then Obama continued this while F'ing up Libya, Syria, and almost Eqypt. Trump supporting the Saudi's in Yemen. And currently Biden is filling out his team with former Obama war hawks. Guess whats coming? I wish everyone would get it and see there are insiders with power and outsiders with no power. Not Democrats or Republicans. We have one party rule where 90% of what happens, happens no matter which party is in charge while the other 10% moves left and right. We all fight and debate over that 10%. What's needed is some critical questioning and push back about the 90%. Instead we have national debates about gender pronouns and other insignificant nonsense. Issues generated by the elite to keep the plebs focus off their activities.

Those few words hit the nail on the head. How long before this video is removed from youtube because its tagged as "hate speech? Ironic isn't it. The woke movement is fake because its main objective is censorship and control. The idea is the path to create a tolerant and just society is to be intolerant to all opposing views or ideas. They must require the reading of 1984 from the view that the government is the protagonist. Or listen to 2112 from the perspective of the priests who protect knowledge and truth. The woke movement is just the iron fist of fascism and oppression covered in a soft cuddly glove.

Here's the thing. If we apply the standard of behavior that is being used to make these evaluations then I'd argue that almost every historical figure or culture that ever existed would fail the test. Human history is fraught with a lot of bad behavior and moral depravity. Regardless of what these crybabies think our society is much more civil and fair than an other in the history of the human race. The fact that there's millions of people worldwide banging down the door trying to get in here is proof enough. So maybe instead of worrying about such nonsense like making sure nobody ever cries again or has their feelings hurt the people of SF should take a look at why a once great city has turned into a total crap hole under their current administration. Because the people the elect suck.

Why should Bernie be interested or care? He's been screwed in the primaries by the Democratic party's political machine in 2016 and again in 2020. He got torpedoed against Hillary and pushed aside to hoist up "moderate" Joe. I give him credit just for showing up.

I work in an analytics organization. We support many internal and external clients. We generate what we call "insights" rather than decisions or strategy based on analytics and data. Its one input into the process. The idea is to supplement your management team's abilities and experience with data and statistics. Not replace it. My thinking is the debate over the strategy to be more aggressive or not is irrelevant. Not taking a FG at halftime would result in getting 7 or getting 0. What was the probability of getting 7 there given the circumstances? Greater than 50%? Would that be enough for you to gamble? The problem is we don't really know for sure what the probability of each outcome is here. Would it have made a difference in the outcome? Why debate a series of hypothetical situations that cannot be proven or disproven using the analytics tool some cite as supporting their claims? My conclusion is the Chiefs just have more talent than the Bills do on their starting 22. I don't think this is debatable. I think its supported by facts and data. You can use analytics or just your own common sense and tell me how many Chiefs would you select position by position to fill out a 22 man starting line up? Maybe 15 Chiefs and 7 Bills? Or something close to that. I'd be hard pressed to say anyone would select a majority of Bills players if they were being objective about it. That's why they lost. No amount of strategizing is going to over come that gap. We need to upgrade the starting line up and close the talent and speed and skill gap to defeat and compete consistently with that team.

The fundamental problem with a 3rd place game is the winner-take-all set up of professional sports. In the NFL there's one successful team each season and 31 unsuccessful teams. This is also true in college sports such as the structure of the NCAA Basketball tournament. And recently the BCS for football. Pretty much who care which team finished 3rd or 4th. You both lost. If you want to decide which team gets 3rd a coin toss would be enough for me. In the Olympics there's the practice of gold, silver, and bronze metals. In college football there are dozens of post regular season bowl games but these at this point these are mostly revenue generators and an opportunity for alumni to take a trip during the holiday break. Youth sports are different in this country. These are developmental leagues where the main objective is to train players and gain experience and proficiency at some sport. Although you still get some over-invested parents and coaches making it out to be game 7 of the World Series with the score tied in the bottom of the 9th. Its amazing how somebody can get so worked up over an 8 year old youth league game to the point of getting kicked off the field or out of the building. But these are generally set up as activities to play. As for 3rd place, who will remember? Maybe the parents who get to drag themselves out of bed on what would otherwise be a free Saturday to drive 45 minutes or longer to some soccer field to play some game for a 3rd place trophy.