Magox

Pheww! Thought it was gonna be N.E.

It's a tough one, if you are looking for the best immediate #2 choice, I wouldn't be surprised that the Bills believe that they can rely on Cassell more so than E.J. But, on the other hand, E.J is beginning to show some glimpses of why they drafted him as high as they did and it would be foolish to let him go without completely confirming if he is who they thought he was. I'd say go with those three, whoever they choose as the immediate backup I'd be fine with either one, but if they do actually believe that E.J is ahead of Cassell as the immediate choice, then you may as well cut Cassell and save that money for Re signing Dareus.

Just admit that you are a partisan putz who isn't able to formulate an original coherent thought.

http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/ben-carson-evolution-life-evolve-non-life-incredible-fairy-tales I think some conservatives like him because, well.....He's likable. He's also obviously extremely intelligent, he's not your ordinary doctor, he was the first doctor to successfully separate Siamese twins (I think). He was the first doctor to do surgery on a fetus inside the mother's womb. So obviously he's a smart dude. The way he talks he's very thoughtful, which I happen to like. He's a man of faith and I know many in the GOP like that. I don't believe he will go far, I could be wrong, but for right now, he's a very appealing anti establishment candidate. Why would Ben Carson want to be the VP of someone who thinks Nancy Pelosi is "the greatest"?

That may be true, but let's not forget that you are enamored with a 73 year old socialist who has no shot in winning in this country, which makes you the even larger outlier.

Taken together, these polls shows the GOP establishment has two real problems. First, nearly two thirds of the base (and I am using Iowa GOP caucus goers as a proxy for the GOP base) have had it with anyone associated with the GOP establishment or leadership. Second, at least in Iowa, Trump is not fading. The more people see him the more favorable their opinion. Even if Trump does fade, his voters are not going to Jeb Bush or John Kasich. The same applies to Carson and Fiorina and Cruz voters. And if any of the latter three fall out before Trump, the odds of him winning the nomination grow exponentially. Before Trump really declared, he was somewhere around the 2% area. When he made his xenophobic opening salvo, his support went up to around the 12% area. From there he went into a nationalistic tone about China, Mexico, Japan all stealing our jobs etc. That bumped him up some more and then his general non pc approach and taking on the establishment has gotten him a little higher. So, I'd say about 30% of his supporters are nativists which is the base of his support, another 30% are drawn to his no BS/ celibrity approach and the rest are what I believe is the anti establishment crowd.

You sound like a very angry, bitter old white dude.

Simms could go on the practic squad roster. Does that count?

Clay, Mulligan and Gray. O'Leary to PS

Give it some time, Trump will soon be questioning Cruz's place of birth. In all seriousness, if there is one politician where Trump would get some backlash for personally attacking, Cruz would probably be the one. Although it will be interesting to see how Trump handles Ben Carson catching up to him in the Iowa polls.

Well, not surprisingly Bird dog's characterization of this is akin to the FB-meme-like chart's that he like's to post, meaning that it's devoid of reality. Did Scott Walker "propose" the idea to build a wall on the northern border? No. However, this is just YET another moment for Scott Walker when he goes off script, he shows that he isn't ready for prime time. The idea that we would have to "look at it" because it's a "legitimate issue" is absurd. I had Scott Walker as one of my top choices a couple months ago, but he has continuously flubbed, backtracked and waffled on a number of issues. Don't get me wrong, his stand on the public sector unions won all sorts of kudos from me but all off too often, he's showing that he just isn't up to the task. I'm not going to completely write him off, but he isn't one of my top tier choices anymore. I view this whole thing as a horse race and Bush and Walker have now fallen off from the top of the pack. For the type of candidate that I am looking for, Rubio and Kasich are at the top with Fiorina making a strong push from the back.

I'm going by all the daily reporting from the on beat reporters, tweets and things that I've read from the guys who attended some of the practices that post here. EJ from what I read was the most inconsistent throughout the camps/preseason. And the time period that I was referring to was the beginning of this particular QB competition, in regards to the consistency matter. And I really don't see how anyone who has been keeping track of the daily events that have been reported can call EJ's play as consistent throughout the camps and preseason. Don't get me wrong we just recently are beginning to see some nice improvement, which is great, but he hasn't been consistent throughout the QB competition.

They will probably keep all three.

I remember a couple people in particular that were pretty invested in that guy.

I'm not emotionally invested with any of the quarterbacks, apparently you are. My conclusion is based on the consistency of the QBs, T.T in my view has shown a continuous and consistent progession of what he can do. And although EJ has been showing some improvement, he has not been consistent. Don't take it personal, it's just my opinion.

I sincerely doubt the coaches and decision makers are going to put nearly as much stock in a few preseason downs as much as many here believe. They will most likely look at the entirety of the body of work that they have seen from these players, see who has progressed during that time period but more importantly see who has been the most consistent. My guess is as of a few weeks ago they were leaning towards Cassel and that it probably has switched on over to T.T In my view the other main thing that they are looking at is do they want to go with two or three QBs. If they go with two, my hunch tells me they go with the perceived more consistent option, which probably would be Cassel.

Your motivations are morally bankrupt. And I will leave it at that.

It's not inclusive of everyone, his rhetoric and policy proposals prove that. You can pretend that what he says only affects the minds of illegal immigrants, but the reality is that the overwhelming majority of Latino voters find him to be repulsive and rightfully so. And even though Trump would be able to draw from some segments of the population that typical GOP candidates could not draw from, it's actually very shallow. The numbers bare that out, in every single poll, there are many more people who dislike him than like him. And to your second point. Your reasoning for is all !@#$ed up. You are coming to the conclusion that there shouldn't be any more legal immigration because Republicans lose votes. What kind of backwards ass thinking is that? The reason why we want a good thriving immigration system is because any successful civilization depends on fresh human capital. Human capital that has the desire to be a productive force in our society. The vast majority don't come here so that they can aspire to be on welfare. I know that's the caricature that some of you would like to believe, but that's not the case. They largely come here to work, and just like many legal immigrants or native folks, they struggle to get by and if they are in California they use the welfare system provided to them by the state. If there is an issue with that, blame it on the state. You don't have to pander to Latinos to win 35% + (even though in this climate not sure 35% is possible) just have to convey the message that they can be part of the GOP, communicate to them that economic conservative principles will benefit their lives and employment prospects and that socially speaking they are lockstep on many of their issues. Bottom line, be inclusive in rhetoric and policy.

I believe that the findings of that poll have some merit to it based on the consistent polling data out there and the anecdotal evidence I've seen. If I had to take a guess, if Trumps support fell off, much of it would go to Rubio and Cruz with some going to Fiorina and Carson. The problem is Trump ain't going anywhere soon. I personally like Bush, but he is proving to be a bad candidate. Trump has been successful at painting Bush as a "low energy" guy and to be honest I think that line of attack on him has been devastating. Plus, Jeb has done some goofy things lately, like the Asian anchor baby deal, making gaffes about the PP deal and most recently having Eric Cantor endorse him. That's just political malpractice. The base just doesn't like him and even if he were to win the nomination, which I don't think he will, he wouldn't get these guys to turn out to vote for him, much like Romney. Even though I don't wish bad outcomes on good people, I kinda wish he'd just implode. Because I think a lot of his support would go to Rubio and Kasich. The data lines up well for Rubio but I'm afraid he's being squeezed by both sides. Trump now has captivated the "base" and Jeb/Christie/Kasich are all vying for the establishment. As strong as Trump is right now, there is only room for two candidates to challenge him. And with Jeb's enormous money advantage and support from the establishment, you gotta believe he will be there throughout most of the process.

For sure, I don't doubt for a minute that the "contrary science" is largely funded by the oil groups. I guess my point is that I believe that when studies are conducted in virtually any field, all too often, I think, there is a predetermined conclusion that scientists are looking to find and that with enough data points you can put them together to paint a conclusion that fits their views. Its just difficult to know what truly is the case. Like I said, I guess man has contributed some to global warming but I also believe that it has been vastly overstated. I could be wrong, I really don't know.

Franz, you seem like a good dude. Just a general rule of thumb, at least for myself, don't try to go in depth on a position if you aren't either a) well-versed on the subject and/or b) you aren't willing to substantively defend it. And no, posting a link without your explanation isn't substantively defending it. Posters here that have disagreed with one another can respect others with differing views if that poster is willing to make a logical cogent case.

Let's hope for the sake of not becoming a nativistic, nationalist "far right" party that Robby's faction loses out.

Look at you, you're becoming unhinged. Take your shtick to the Arizona Border Recon, you'd fit right in.

I would say it's more romanticism than anything else.

TYTT had this to say about Trump: So I guess that makes him a "blowhard' who adopts language of the left? I mean you did say Listen, you've outed yourself to be what you are. You whined to everyone to take it easy on the guy who advocated the extermination of illegal immigrants. You propped up a study to imply that illegal immigrants are more violent than others but dismissed the overwhelming amount of studies that show otherwise. You believe that the Civil war was not a good thing and that you believe that Lincoln had no intention of good will for blacks. At least TYTT's and Firechan's argument was based on the constitutionality of it, but you went on a whole another direction. You consistently come to Trump's defense when what he has said is indefensible with anyone viewing this with clear eyes, and you've yet to acknowledge that. And to boot, you just attempted to make a racially charged pejorative by calling me "Alejandro". You're a sad pathetic person.