Dorkington

Honestly, as long as he doesn't fumble the ball, I'm all for him as PR. I feel like we've had a bad run of fumbling PRs lately.

No matter how good of a deal this is for the Bills, this is proof that Whaley sucks, or something. Right?

Current RCP map http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html FiveThirtyEight's maps http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

Dang, Johnson is killing it.

Stats don't lie, EJ is better than Tyrod.

This is about what I think. Brady's game protects him quite a bit. We've seen him struggle going downfield a bit more, so they moved their game to all short field passes. Eventually that'll go too. Also, Brady has taken a lot less punishment over the years compared to other QBs. Eventually though, that'll catch up as well. Is it this year? Probably not. But its soon.

Alright, here's your post convention poll. Yes, I'm leaving 'abstain' and 'other' out of it. At the moment RCP has the four at: Trump - 40.0% Clinton - 38.8% Johnson - 7.3% Stein - 3.0% (Also, note, the poll question is 'who do you *plan* to vote for' not 'who would you ideally vote for')

Personally, unless there's a complete meltdown, I want to see a Whaley/Rex run of at least 5 years before I make any decisions. I'm tired of flipping coaches every couple of years, I want to see what happens if we have continuity and build things for a longer run. If it doesn't work out, by all means go back to the 2-3 year coaching turnover, I guess.

I was one of those kids that was left to my own devices on how to pay for school, and what path to take. Not every kid has great parents, unfortunately, and I think you're overestimating the wealth of people if you think they're buying two cars every three years on average. The solution isn't to berate the parents choices 18 years ago, because that doesn't help the kid 'figure it out' in the now. It's why I'm a big advocate of 'real world' education in high school. Things like teaching children how to balance a checkbook, what apr is, what credit cards, school loans, mortgages are. General home-ec, cooking basics, home repair basics, etc. Guidance on choices when it comes to education and employment, instead of simply yelling at children that they NEED to get a Bachelors in ANYTHING, make sure they understand that there are trade school options, that there are jobs that you can get with an Associates, that some majors are worth more than others.

Unfortunately yes, children. 18 year olds aren't properly informed or educated to understand the fiscal consequences of taking on various student loans, because keeping them ignorant is profitable, and its directly tied to what you mention later in your post, that college has become a huge for-profit industry. So the question is, how do you make college more affordable? Implement regulations? Tax credits? (generally speaking, I don't think healthcare or education should be for-profit industries, but I know most here disagree with me on that... I'm open minded to solutions that make the cost of participation cheaper, though, since its more likely that both sides of the aisle would come together on that, vs 'socialism')

Are you suggesting that college should be mandatory? Hm, interesting, didn't really think about that option. My opinions on tax funded 'college' are a bit mixed. I'd like to see community college and trade schools be fully tax funded as a first step, and then university if the results prove favorable. Separately, at the high school level, I think there needs to be some changes need to be made to better prepare children for the real world. All I know is, we throw a lot of kids into loads of debt because we (as a society) tell them they *have* to do it. Also, I'm not sure if a BA in underwater basket weaving is something that should be tax funded, compared to a BS in engineering. Can we pick and choose which degrees are tax funded? And if we do, does that create social problems as a result? Not every science or art is entirely useful in the real world.

I have not a clue, I'm not in tune with the Green Party. I gave them a glance over because I see a certain amount of liberals looking into it. On paper, I'm aligned with much of their platform, but again, until they get some serious politicians behind them, I'm not taking them too seriously. Ideally I'd love to see a legitimate 3rd/4th party option, but I don't think our political system will allow it to happen.

I'm fine with either term being used. I'm not sure how many people see 'free education' and don't understand that its paid for by taxes. As far as why your taxes shouldn't go towards children being educated, because you don't plan to have children. That heads down a slippery slope. My own personal opinion is that I believe in tax funded services that better the whole of society, even if I don't plan to use them. I believe a certain level of education benefits the whole of society.

This is why I'm not too upset about him 'losing'. My original expectation was that he was running for the Presidency simply to push the conversation on the left, and he did just that. More than ever, 'Democrats', support a lot of progressive policies. Not sure if they'll happen, because as you said, big money controls our government (yes, both sides), but at least there's public momentum for certain things. Tax-funded, just like other tax-funded initiatives, services, etc. People just use the word 'free', because they aren't directly paying for it. But you knew that.

I think the Green Party would have a lot more support if Jill Stein wasn't the headpiece of it. She's not at all qualified to be POTUS, and frankly she's a little nutty. If Sanders, or some other experienced politician were the head of the Green Party, you'd be seeing a lot of support... and likely a Trump victory. Most liberals are going to be voting for Clinton, because they 'understand the stakes', even if Clinton isn't their preferred candidate.

The difference is there were like 17 candidates on the GOP side, many of them traditional Republicans, thus weakening the competition for Trump.

Super liberal checking in... my view: Short version: Meh Longer, but still short version: Exceedingly safe pick. Kaine makes a lot of sense for a Clinton White House, in that he probably aligns with her ideals the best of the final three, and he helps her (probably) get certain swing states. But as someone who is hoping that the Democratic party would start embracing true progressive policies, its a bit of a disappointment. My choices at this point are Clinton, who is a bit right of what I'd like, and Stein who is completely unqualified, and a bit of a nut. And no, I'm not considering Trump.

All I know is, I wish I had Fitz's beard game.

More proof that Whaley is a joke.

As RB depth and leadership? Definitely.

You know, I was very anti Incognito when all that crap happened in Miami... and the fact that he has owned up to it, and did the personal work, and is out there playing with passion, control, and respect is awesome. These interviews, and how frank and well spoken he is, is just icing on the cake. Glad to have him here in Buffalo.

RCP has Clinton up 3.6 points in a 4 way race. That being said, Stein isn't on all of the ballots AFAIK

http://www.snopes.com/trump-copies-tweet/

The original hitting the US in 1998 is why you see a lot of adults playing Pokemon Go... yes, I'm included. It's basically the classic Pokemon game (give or take), but with modern takes on it with new technologies, and also encourages being active and socializing.

I think simply swapping the Ravens and the Bills makes sense, geographically. But, that means no more Ravens v Steelers rivalry, and those games are always money.