billsfan89

I think we are just at an impasse as I think that its not a direct disqualifer as you think once again its context that I look for whereas you are dogmatic and I think that's just not going to go anywhere.

I don't think they are unqualified or at least not automatically unqualified. Money does not equal a qualification to have good judgement and a lack of money doesn't mean you have bad judgement. I kind of agree that I would put into question someone who doesn't have 5-6k to float themselves for 2 months but I am not going to immediately disqualify someone on that reason alone. I would look into that persons education, experience, circumstances, and political positions along with why they don't have that kind of money before I state that they are unqualified . In an economy where there are a lot of people struggling its not unreasonable to think smart and good people would not have a lot of money, it certainly is a reasonable possibility in my mind. I am not defended Alexandra OC because while I like some of what she stands for (Universal Healthcare, getting money out of politics, and ending our rampant military spending) I think she has a lot of bad or unrealistic ideas like a 15 dollar federal minimum wage and a Universal Basic Income. But my thinking that she is a bit in over her head is more so based off of how unrealistic or not fleshed out some of her ideas are and not that she isn't able to afford 5-6k right away.

Wage growth is barely keeping up with inflation, the economy for over 30 years has been hit by factors larger than tax and economic policy (Automation and Globalization the biggest culprits) so I don't blame lack of purchasing power wage growth on any recent administration. As far as the unemployment rate although it certainly has been trending lower for a long time under both Obama and Trump its not really reflective of the massive numbers of people who have stopped looking for work who are not counted in the total. I think Trump's tax cuts and deregulation have certainly juiced the economy but its not likely to have a long term impact in my opinion. The stock market will be juiced short term maybe for another 2 years or so but once corporate profits normalize and the sugar high fades there won't be nearly enough investment and value added to the economy to sustain longer term growth. Most of the tax cuts on the corporate side will go into stock buy backs which will mostly benefit the top income brackets who are already doing the best they have been since the 1920's. 83% of the tax cuts on the consumer side go to the top income earners who once again are sitting on record levels of income and capital. In 2-3 years I fear that the sugar high of deregulation and tax cuts are going to fade and the US will have financed huge deficits for very little long term gain. Basically I think the Trump policy is nothing more than a stimulus for Wall Street and the top 2-3% of earners while longer term issues like Infrastructure are ignored. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

I understand your point that having 5-6k in savings isn't the hardest thing to do and that it isn't that high of a standard to have. But given how bad the economy has been for working people I don't think its unfathomable for a person to not having that kind of level of savings but Have good policy ideas. I think someone close to the struggles of working people has a perspective and an understanding of what is impacting those populations and could bring ideas to the government people not directly impacted might not. No one elected to Congress is an expert on every issue. When you elect someone you trust that their perspective, you trust their judgement, and you trust their policy prescriptions that they have presented to you. I think that there are people who are struggling for various reasons that have those good qualities that one would want in a leader/rep. I am not dogmatic about someone struggling not being able to bring good representation to their constituents. Just to be clear I am not saying everyone in Congress of the Senate should be poor or working class but rather I am not going to lock out or mock people who are struggling to come up with 5-6k to float themselves from bringing good ideas to the table. I get that you might see that as an automatic disqualifying factor as its not the highest bar to set. But to me I am not going to be nearly as dogmatic as I think you lock a lot of good people out by doing that.

I think it is legit or at least not too far off. The defense is a top 5 unit in the league in my opinion. The defense boasts a top 5 safety tandem in the league, a top 5 corner in the league, a rookie anchoring the slot corner position, a pro-bowl caliber linebacker (Milano), a high end rookie linebacker (Edumonds), a pair of good pass rushers in Hughes and Lorax, Star is a good interior run defender and the front 7 rolls deep with guys like Kyle, Phillips, Shaq, Murphy (when healthy) and Cam. Outside of CB 2 I don't see much of a weakness on the defense. Can anyone name 5 defenses better than the Bills right now?

I think you can be a young person or someone making under 30k a year and bring good ideas to the government. If you had more actual working people in the government it would actually function for those people better. If you want to shut out half of Americans from Congress because they don't meet that standard fine but its out of touch for how hard a lot of people have it. Do you seriously think that there weren't religious fundamentalist morons who were elected from the tea party? Do you think Sarah Palin and George W Bush are smart people? There are so many former staff members who say Trump is a grade a moron who governs by watching Fox News (and his tweets aligning when Fox News puts out stories proves that) so I think there is plenty of evidence to support that. There are plenty of quotes that I could pull up on moronic things that people like Michelle Backman and other "right wing" candidates have said. The poster I was replying to was saying how the left always elects morons but I was pointing out there were plenty of morons on the right.

50% of American workers make less than 30k a year. A lot of young people under 30 fall into that category. If you want to shut a lot of people out from Congress fine that's your personal opinion. I just think you are out of touch with the working class.

They will lose to the Pats who will likely need that game to push for a bye week. Winning 5 NFL games out of 6 for a mediocre team with a rookie QB isn't an easy task even if you have a great defense and a soft schedule. I am not saying its not possible to finish 8-8 and go 5-1 to end the season but odds are they are more likely to go 3-3 and finish 6-10 maybe 4-2 and they go 7-9 if they can sweep the Fish. Even if Allen plays competent he likely will have one horrid game in those 5 games and that's enough to lose one game right there. Personally I see a loss to the Pats, a split against the Fish, a split against the Jags and Lions, and a win against the Jets.

A young person being able to afford 5-6k in expenses while having their ability to work be limited for 2 months isn't exactly easy for a lot of people under 30 to do. I agree with you if this is a matter of being able to scrounge together 500 dollars but it screams out of touch to think that its easy for everyone to have 5-6k to dump in a short period of time while having income be limited. I get that it is your personal preference and "competence" test but for me I think if you want more common people involved in government you are going to have some people who don't have 5-6k to spare on a big move. 50% of American workers make less than 30k a year, odds are a lot of those people fall under that category. So if your aim is to open up the government to less lawyers and affluent business people you are going to have to accept that this scenario could happen and it isn't a bad thing. The right has elected some pretty big morons. George W Bush and Trump (the past few years I actually think Trump back in the day was somewhat smart) aren't the sharpest tools in the shed. Sarah Palin is another momo that ended up on a presidential ticket. A lot of the Tea Party and fundamental right wing candidates are also scary low on the intelligence level. I am not saying this is exclusive to either party but painting it as a partisan issue isn't wise.

Maybe I am taking lighthearted attacks a bit too seriously. But it just seems like an out of touch attack that is counter intuitive to what people actually want in government (less lawyers more common people.)

So you are OK with only well off elites being elected and expecting them to fight corruption, to me that seems like a contradictory idea? For me personally I only care about your ideas, where your funding comes from (In this legalized form of bribery call campaign contributions your conflict of interest is called into question by who funds your campaigns), and how you plan to represent your district. That doesn't mean that I want a bunch of idiots in Congress but rather that to be a smart person who understands the issues and cares about representing your people you don't need to rich or part of some "natural aristocracy." Give me more common people in government rather than demanding everyone financially successful.

IF the Bills winout then yeah maybe but at 3-7 and a highly unlikely chance of winning 6 in a row, that's probably not likely.

Chad has a lot of issues in his personal life he needs to sort out. If he can get that in order (which is going to take some time, at the earliest he isn't going to come back until 2019) I have no problem bringing him in to compete for a third string QB job.

I find it shocking how many people are shitting on her for this for really no other reason than they don't like her politics. It is possible to hate someones policy positions and empathize with them as a person. If this was some libertarian or conservative young person who came out of nowhere to upset Marco Rubio or some other establishment GOP congressmen would you honestly be hating on them? Is it really unfathomable that a young person can't pay for 3 months rent in Washington DC (November and December plus last months rent), a security deposit, moving expenses, and general living expenses for 2 months while not being able to fully work? So many people on this forum say corruption is the problem, lawyers and rich business people being the only ones involved in politics is the problem, and that more ordinary people need to run for office. Yet when someone who isn't rich and isn't a lawyer or business person can't afford 5-6k in moving costs everyone is shitting on them? Seriously do you think that only people with money should win elections?

Donohoe was a pretty bad drafter, great at free agency acquisitions but terrible at drafting, outside of 2001 he did not have one single good draft, I would give him a 3.5/10 for drafting. The Levy/Brandon Era was a little bit better, they seemed to miss on early picks but ***** or just do OK on higher picks. 2009 and 2007 were good or above average drafts but 2006 and 2008 were bad. I would give Levy/Brandon a 5.5/10 for drafting. Nix was better in his 3 drafts 2010 was one of the worst drafts this team has ever had but 2011 netted 3 defensive starters and 2012 netted 2 defensive starters and a big piece along the O-line. I would give Nix a 7/10 for drafting from 2010 to 2012. Had the 2010 draft not been so terrible he probably would have been one of the better drafters in the league at that time. Whaley was awful at drafting kind of similar to Donohoe as he was really good at free agent acquisitions. 2013 was subpar, Woods and Kiko were good players, Goodwin obviously a talent but hurt while he was here. 2014 was a mess, Watkins was a good player but the cost to trade up was too high, the only other player to emerge from that draft was P.Brown who was a decent starter. 2015 was his best draft as Darby was a good player and Miller had two good years to start his career. 2016 was pretty dam bad as Lawson is the only player remaining and the jury is still out on him. I would give Whaley a 2.5/10 for drafting. McBeane's two drafts have good early returns esp the 2017 draft which looks like it could have netted 3 key starters and possibly 4 if Zay pans out. 2018 is hard to tell some good talent but way too early to tell.

I agree that they can't spend all their money in 2019 as they have to be smart to roll over some money to extend players in 2020 and 2021. However they have to make a push to fill out the offense via free agency and possibly fill a major defensive need. Remember that after 2019 some big contracts expire, Shady, Clay, and Hughs all expire and Trent Murphy's deal is also easy to get out of. Outside of Star the team doesn't have any major 2020 commitments at the moment. The teams cap is very well managed for the future even if they add several big contracts in the 2019 off-season they will be able to add more space as big contracts fall off after 2019.

I like the move DT played well last year and he brings some speed to the WR position. It really isn't going to make that much of a difference this season but if it gives a small upgrade to the WR position then it is a good move.

The proposals for using algorithms have been illustrated to be open systems that anyone can have access to. I fail to see how that's a closed system. If you have an algorithm deciding redistricting on parameters set up by a Democratic process that removes human digression and bias from redistricting. Yes not everyone can read code and the technology solution is not perfect but I pose to you should this be in the direct hands of legislators who have a conflict of interest in deciding 10 years of Congressional elections? I have faith in the citizenry to vet an open algorithm. I don't have faith to leave the system the way it is and just go after corruption as though there isn't any inherent conflict of interest in the pols deciding the districts to begin with. Yes not everyone can read code but everyone can have their voice on how the simple parameters are set up (What are the voter registration numbers and other forms of data that should be set) those factors you can have a direct voice to your representative. I understand your concerns about technical limitations of the electorate but the code and parameters being out in the open makes it much harder to hide corruption than any system where people with little restrictions decide based off of their own digressions behind closed doors. That's why I ask what's the alternative because even if you had a hardline stance on corruption and somehow eliminated corruption you still are handing over massive power to partisan legislatures to decide Congressional districts with little guidelines on how to do so. Independent commissions are probably the best in-between but as you said there is a limit to just how "Independent" commissions can be (Although I would take the Colorado and California model over most others.) Once again I don't think this is a perfect solution as I am not sure a perfect solution exists. But out of all available options taking the drawing of the lines out of the hands of the pols who stand to benefit from how the lines are drawn and putting it into the process of an open algorithm makes it a much better system.

I will believe Tom Brady's decline when I see it, to me Brady still looks like a top 5 QB. Father time is undefeated I don't doubt Brady will start to decline at some point and maybe that point is now, I don't think there has been a QB that has played well beyond age 40 so it possible he has started to hit the wall or at least the beginning of the wall. But Brady's numbers still are good, over 2 to 1 TD to INT ration, 67% plus completion percentage and on pace for right around 4000 yards. So even if Brady's are strength is starting to become limited it hasn't shown to be a problem for him in any meaningful way during games. That's not to say that it won't be a problem in the future as maybe teams get more tape and figure out ways to make them pay for it. But I also think BB will gameplan around any limitations.

That's kind of the way I looked at it. The team put Peterman in way over his head and he played like a player in way over his head. That's not to say that Peterman would have been anything special had he been a third stringer for 3-4 years to start his career, but rather that his career would have stood a chance at some sort of progression had he been handled like a standard mid round QB.

Dude was put in a bad position and he just wasn't good enough to cut it at a pro-level at least not without many years of development. I think Peterman's biggest issue was his lack of arm strength and how in over his head he was in general which led to bad decision making. McD's biggest flaw as head coach has been how poorly he has handled the QB situation. He made a panic move by taking out Tyrod when they hit a tough part of the schedule and Tyrod had a ***** receiving core which made his limited play even more limited. Peterman was overexposed and it clearly shell shocked him the rest of his career. McD then made a 3 way QB competition (which was a mistake, AJ should have just been the starter and given Allen the other reps, McD should have known that Peterman's good off-season play wasn't going to translate to the NFL one year later.) Then there was the lack of a veteran QB after the AJ trade and the fact that he got fooled twice by Peterman's pre-season play. McD's bad handling of the QB situation was evidenced by Peterman's career being historically bad but I do think that Peterman would have stood a chance at a NFL career had he been treated like a 3rd string QB for at least his first 2-3 years in the league. Instead McD overvalued him twice and that put him in vastly over his head.

First off in what most people propose the algorithms would be publicly available and free for anyone to challenge line by line. The parameters to which the algorithms work would also be available and set through a democratic process (Thus being a completely open and Democratic process.) You extrapolate that because I said either party can (keyword can) challenge the way the algorithm is written isn't to say that they are the ONLY ones who can. Any interest would have equal access to the technology. You have failed to provide me with a logical reason as to how this is less transparent and what the alternative is other than some vague generality about corruption. So this process is not about giving more power to the two party system but rather about taking out corruptible human digression as much as possible from the process or redistricting and making the process of redistricting more openly available to the public. I fail to see how you have illustrated that this proposed process is not dramatically better and addresses critical issues. Step by step I have illustrated how this process would improve a critical part of Democracy and be more transparent than any system that would rely on politicians or direct human digression. I think having publicly available technology with Democratically set parameters is much more accountable to the public. Any citizen could look up and have access to the technology and understand the parameters to which the code is set. Yes not everyone is computer literate enough to understand the code or has the time to comb through all that code but most people don't have access to the people and pols that decide the redistricting currently. You act as though every citizen has such a direct hand in the process that is currently used or that a human discretionary system would give people more access to the decision making. I have illustrated that it is simply not the case. The technology proposed is thought to be openly available to the public and open to any legal challenges from anyone, the parameters to which the algorithm is set are decided through a Democratic process. This is as open to the public as a system could possibly get.

Who crafts the laws? Who narrowly defines what corruption is? Who enforces the criminal penalties? Who polices the police? These types of hardline corruption fights have been used to enforce one party rule. These solutions can cause more problems than they solve. Once again your reductive form of questioning can be used to undermine anything involving humans and politics. You need a more concrete and specific plan of action and better reasoning to state why the technology available to help the problem shouldn't be used. Just to be clear I agree that there is an issue with corruption in America. I am for taking money out of the political process as best we can do it and harsher penalties and enforcement of political corruption. But on this one particular issue of gerrymandering I have failed to see any argument you have put forward that isn't a general reductionist claim (that could be applied to almost anything) that actually states why there shouldn't be the use of this technology in this process.

What's your solution? Other than a bland we have to fight corruption? How do you fight corruption? Who appoints the police of corruption? Who polices those police? How do you get people in power to check their own power? You can reduce anything involving humans to those types of basic questions. Fighting corruption has been the charge that dictitors have used to drive away opposition. Fighting corruption results in more problems than it solves. Now I don't actually believe those questions about corruption but I am stating that you can use that line of reductive "Who will police the police" style of questioning to make a general undermining of any argument. You stated that no solution is perfect. I am offering a better idea as to how technology can be used as a tool to better do this process. You have not provided me with a sensible solution as to how the tool of algorithms and technology shouldn't be used in the process of redistricting. You also have not provided me with how algorithms aren't transparent? If one party has questions about the algorithm they can hire their own tech experts to question and scrutinize the code and parameters. That's much more concrete process than trusting human intuition.

I am making the argument that there is a proven non-hypothetical solution to the problem using technology. I am making the argument that there exists technology already developed that uses raw data to develop districts which results in better districts that actually make sense. Technology is not impervious to corruption but the tool of technology in this instance is more transparent and more accountable. It allows humans with political bias and motivation for corruption to be just enough removed from the process to avoid corruption even further. You said yourself that no solution is perfect but the technology proposed provides a better tool and better solution to root out corruption in a process that is integral to Democracy. I agree that the problem is corruption the use of technology to make a less corrupt process is a good solution. The only other solution is to have independent commissions as they do in California and Colorado but then you still have the same reductive questions of who is on the commission, who puts the people on the commissions, won't the people on the commissions have their own bias,. and who sets the criteria they have to follow? Those same reductive questions you have about algorithms you can have about any solution to the problem. So I fail to see how using the tool of an algorithms is a non-sequitur. I also fail to see how an algorithm is less transparent and less accountable? You can check each line of code, you can check the parameters, and check the results and how they were calculated. Each party and each entity interested can challenge the algorithm with their own tech experts. What is your solution other than a general we have to fight corruption? I am proposing that you fight corruption with the use of technology, I am not sure you even have a non-generic solution.