mjt328

OK. Let's just go with it, and say Putin 100% wanted Trump as president. How is anyone supposed to know WHY, except Putin himself? There are thousands of possible reasons WHY he would prefer Trump over Clinton. If you choose to assume it was something dastardly and treasonous without even a shred of evidence, then I feel sorry for you. We've had investigations by the FBI, the House of Reps, the Senate, and two-years with Mueller's Special Council into the Russia thing. Now that the Democrats have control of Congress, they are digging into Trump's business, his family and anyone connected to his political campaign. All of them are DESPERATELY tried to find SOMETHING.... ANYTHING that can be used as ammunition in getting him kicked out of office. The most powerful people in the WORLD are searching under every rock to find a shred of dirt on this guy, and thus far have found absolutely NOTHING. If you hate Trump's beliefs and political stances, then fine. But at some point, you have to acknowledge that he has done nothing wrong. You accuse him of being a criminal, because you WANT him to be. Not because there are facts to back it up.

If you really don't know the history of the Steele/Trump Dossier, then you need to spend the afternoon doing some research before posting more about the Russia thing. Here is an article I quickly Googled from CNN. It's from March: https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/16/politics/steele-information-dossier/index.html Hillary Clinton's campaign paid for the creation of this Dossier. It was compiled by ex-British agent Christopher Steele. Many of the sources were from the Russian government. I'll think up a conspiracy theory involving Tom Brady and Robert Kraft and get back to you. Geez.

Why would a person coming from Mexico need asylum? Do some research into this issue, and listen to what officials who handle this daily are saying. Most of these "asylum seekers" are actually individuals who were caught sneaking across the border. Once apprehended, they claim to be seeking asylum. So instead of being immediately deported, our laws schedule a court hearing and release them into the country. More than 90% never return for their hearing. I'm all for helping people. But it's foolish to just allow open-borders, and say anyone who needs help can come to the U.S. for free health care, education, housing, etc. Our country does not have the resources to help everyone in the world. Reality check: It's not the rich neighborhoods that are being hurt by illegal immigration. It's the poor ones. The guy making $500K per year is not worried about an illegal immigrant taking his job. It's the guy making minimum wage. It's not the wealthy school districts getting overcrowded without enough teachers to handle a classroom. It's the inner-city school districts. Do you lock the doors to your home? Are you willing to allow just anyone who rings the doorbell into your house? Being careful/selective does not mean you believe EVERYONE outside is a dangerous criminal, a thief or a rapist. It doesn't mean you are lumping them all together. You lock the doors because SOME people on the outside ARE dangerous. You want to protect the people inside. Immigration should be no different. Everyone that wants to come here should come to the front door, ring the doorbell, and allow us to decide whether to let them in.

Russian intelligence was used to create the Trump Dossier. If Putin wanted Trump to be president so badly, why would he have allowed this to happen? I'm sure that China's government would have preferred Hillary Clinton to win the election, rather than deal with someone who was going to overhaul trade with them. And if every U.S. intelligence agency spent two years digging into it, you would probably discover that China also made efforts to influence the 2016 election.

We can handle more immigrants. We cannot handle more illegal immigrants. The millions of job openings are mostly for skilled workers, technicians, manufacturers, computer coders, etc. If someone coming from Mexico can speak/write English, and has the skills to handle such a position, then fantastic. They can get in line for a work permit, wait their turn, and maybe even become a U.S. citizen when the time comes. I'm all for it. But when you fail to address illegal immigration, you are opening the door to millions of unskilled workers who drag wages down for low-income American citizens and drain public resources (such as public schools) without contributing tax revenue. If born here, their children are also eligible for government benefits. Not to mention, drug smugglers, human traffickers and terrorists have an easier path into our country, when we aren't double-checking who is coming in the door.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html?_r=0&referer= This is from the New York Times, right after the 2016 election. Intelligence officials say both the DNC and RNC were hacked, but they only released what they obtained from the Democrat side. You can cover your ears and call it "misinformation" - but this is from a liberal-leaning publication. If Russia was looking to hack both sides, it's quite possible their goal was not explicitly to help get Trump elected. It's just as possible the plan was to cause chaos/discourse during the election, and in the end, they were only able to obtain damaging information on the Democratic candidate. Either way, (as I stated in my previous post) what the Russians wanted to do is irrelevant. They had no affect on changing, adding or subtracting American votes.

Sure. But just allowing an unskilled person who can't speak English to sneak across the border is not going to help fill this kind of job. I'm sure there are plenty of foreigners who would be valuable additions to the American workforce. But we can't let them in, because our resources are tapped trying to stop the horde of illegals flooding across our borders. The main groups being hurt by illegal immigration are legal immigrants and poor American citizens. It's common sense. And both political parties should be on the same side with this issue. But liberals get a lot of mileage out of using the immigration issue to smear conservatives and call them racist.

This chart only shows convictions. Not crimes committed. I would imagine that many illegals are deported when caught, rather than put through trial and then convicted. There are multiple studies that show illegals commit way more crimes (per capita) than native-born citizens. Regardless. Let's look at another part of your chart. The lowest group on the entire list is LEGAL immigrants. LEGAL immigration is a good thing. Nobody disputes that. And if you actually listened to the President speak, you would understand that he believes that too. Instead, the national media loves to take his comments out of context, so they can make people believe he is against all immigration. In reality, he is just against ILLEGALS. Most Trump supporters are in favor of increasing legal immigration.... AFTER we find a way to control the flood of illegals at the border.

Foreign powers (not just Russia) always try to influence the elections of other countries, for a multitude of reasons. What happened in 2016 was nothing new. Maybe they believe one candidate's views are better for their own interests. Maybe they find one candidate easier to negotiate with. Assuming you are correct that Russia "wanted Trump as President" - there could be multiple reasons. Maybe they figured his political inexperience would benefit them. Maybe they knew his election would divide our country. Maybe there was bad-blood between Putin and Clinton from her time as Secretary of State. In the end, does it really matter? According to every investigation that went into Russian interference, there were no votes changed, no votes added and no votes subtracted. There were no intrusions into polling places. There was nothing done by Russia that stopped American citizens from going to the voting booth, picking the candidate of their choice, and that selection being properly counted. When you break it down, all of this ridiculous uproar is about Facebook ads. Some Russian hackers got into the computer server for the Democratic National Committee, distributed that information to Wikileaks and then put the dirt they found on Hillary Clinton onto Social Media. Now obviously hacking is a crime. But Mueller's report states that attempts were also made to hack the Republic National Committee. And the only part that actually "helped" Trump was the distribution of the DNC information, which is really no different than what every journalistic outlet does on a daily basis. Whether CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews or Facebook is putting it out, every American has the ability to decipher on their own what information is true/false and how it influences their vote. By the way, the same time Russia was supposedly "helping Trump" by campaigning on Facebook - the American National Media was eagerly reporting details from the infamous Trump Dossier to the public. And we now know this Dossier was compiled using (wait for it)... Russian intelligence. Was this not an example of Russia helping Hillary Clinton, by distributing dirt on her opponent? The only difference between the two situations is that: a) What the Russians stole and distributed from the DNC server was true, and b) Clinton's campaign was actually involved in the Dossier.

The Patriots have a huge advantage, because Tom Brady gives them a discount at the QB position. His contract pays him an average of $15 million per year, which ranks 19th in the NFL. In addition, their offensive system is specifically designed to make the RB and WR positions expendable. > Instead of utilizing high-paid outside receivers like Antonio Brown, Odell Beckham and Julio Jones, the passing game depends on slot receivers and tight ends - which make considerably less money, can be found later in the draft and are more easily interchangeable. > Instead of utilizing a single stud running back, they go RBBC and play different guys each week depending on the gameplan. They aren't locked-down with a huge Todd Gurley, LeVeon Bell type contract, and players (again) are easily replaceable. And finally, the team's overall success and prominence makes players appear much better (and more attractive in free agency) than they really are. Don't be surprised when Trent Brown flops outside of New England. He was an average tackle, who happened to start for a Super Bowl winner. No way he gets that massive contract if he's leaving a team like Arizona. Meanwhile, the Patriots reap the benefits by getting a 3rd Round Supplemental for letting a mid-level guy walk.

I'm not old enough to have seen Dan Fouts play. So no opinion on the Chargers side. Joe Montana gets the vote over Steve Young, and it isn't really close. The 49ers had both QBs for years, and never considered going with Young until Montana was past his prime. Once Young stepped in, he was fantastic... but he never reached the levels of his predecessor.

Sounds like the entire offense was out-of-sync. Poor blocking. Dropped passes. Bad throws.

Agree with this. The only parts of the team with heavy turnover (O-Line, Wide Receivers, Tight Ends) were positions that pretty much bottomed-out last year. If the offensive line takes some time to gel, it can't possibly be worse than last season. If it takes a few games for Josh Allen to get on page with his receivers, it can't possibly be worse than last season.

Building a roster is more than just stockpiling talent. That's one reason I'm skeptical about how far Cleveland goes, and more excited about where Buffalo is headed. With the Bills, you can see players unifying around Sean McDermott and his vision. You can sense Josh Allen rising to a leadership position, and the locker room lining up behind him. Even the free agents who walked in the door 2-3 months ago... whether it be Cole Beasley standing up to defend the city, or the multiple offensive players who came here because of Allen's potential. Can you say the same about Freddie Kitchens and Baker Mayfield?

Sean McDermott gets a lot of criticism on this board. But here are the facts: In his first year, the Bills were almost universally expected to finish as one of the NFL's worst teams. From the media to their own fanbase. And once Brandon Beane started purging the roster in the preseason (Sammy Watkins, Ronald Darby) the word "tanking" started circulating around. Yet the Bills ended up finishing 9-7 and breaking their streak of playoff-less seasons. Last year, the roster deconstruction finally completed. We had a rookies playing all over the roster, including at Quarterback. The Bills were among the favorites to be picking #1 in the draft, and I couldn't count how many predictions had us winning 3 or less games. We ended up winning twice as many games, and looked very competitive every week during the final stretch of the season. McDermott has clearly made some mistakes - most notably the Nathan Peterman debacle. But when all is considered, he has FAR EXCEEDED all Win/Loss expectations, considering the talent at his disposal. Now Beane has finished his roster tear-down, and is moving into the rebuild phase. Going into Year 3, we have stronger talent and players who have bought into the system. I think opinions on McDermott will start turning around now that he's got something to work with.

At this point, the biggest thing we are going to miss from Kyle Williams is his leadership. With a rotation of Ed Oliver, Star Lotulelei, Jordan Phillips and Harrison Phillips, I just don't see a big drop-off coming with on-field production. Last year, we also had Shaq Lawson sliding inside on passing downs. With Lorenzo Alexander getting near retirement as well, the Bills could really use some defensive players to step up as leaders. Jerry Hughes is the next oldest, but he's never come across as that kind of guy.

Remember that we are talking about 2018. Not what a player has been throughout his entire career. Charles Clay was terrible last year. Absolutely no separation, hands of stone and nothing after the catch. I don't think we missed anything when he was out of the lineup and Jason Croom was playing. So honestly, it could be argued that Lee Smith is an upgrade over last year's Clay. He is a better blocker, and his pass catching couldn't be worse than what Clay offered in 2018. In the same way, Kyle Williams also took a step back in 2018. At least in the pass rushing department, you just didn't see the consistent burst off the line. He wasn't a liability. But he wasn't his normal Pro-Bowl self either. I don't think it's unrealistic for Ed Oliver to give us similar results as a rookie.

Absolutely no on Bell. Maybe on Clowney. Not sold he's a real impact player. Rudolph would be worth a Day 3 pick.

Nope. Mark Clayton and Mark Duper played with possibly the best Quarterback of the late 80s/early 90s in Dan Marino. The Dolphins had very little rushing attack to speak of, and were one of the highest volume passing attacks of that era. It was inevitable that receivers in that offense were going to put up pretty good numbers. To be Hall of Fame worthy, it can't just be about the stats... especially in a situation like that. Neither Clayton or Duper was consistent enough, and neither guy really struck fear in opposing defenses. Teams feared Marino, regardless of who he was throwing to. Contrast them with someone like Andre Reed, who had similar stats during the same time period (and most considered a borderline inductee). The Bills were more of a balanced attack, and Reed's stats were always competing against a HOF running back Thurman Thomas. Reed also had another HOF receiver across the field in James Lofton, and still managed to be the focus of Buffalo's passing attack. There was always a sense that Reed was an actual threat himself, and it wasn't all Jim Kelly. And finally, Reed had many HUGE games without Kelly in the lineup -- most notably the Greatest Comeback.

Do you really think the coaching staff will keep a guy on the 53-man roster (not to mention active on gameday), who is not a primary backup, does not play special teams and would only be useful to run 1-2 truck plays every week? Not going to happen. Honestly, Tyree Jackson will be lucky to make the 53. He's a long-term developmental QB, who went undrafted. Most teams will not carry 3 QBs on their primary roster, and I don't see us doing it either. Unless he plays fantastic in training camp/preseason, the Bills will stash him on the practice squad.

Fantastic response, and exactly what I was trying to get at. The question of "when life begins" is not something that can be answered by science. Scientists can look into a microscope and understand what is happening biologically. But the determination of when it actually becomes life is completely open to interpretation. At the end of the day, it comes down to a person's moral beliefs. Many Christians are against any form of abortion, because the Bible states that God "knew" each person before they were conceived. Their stance is not based on being anti-women or anti-choice. They simply believe abortion at any point is killing a human life. Some denominations have extended this to even forbid birth control, but that seems to be a very small minority among the Christian population. Others (like you mentioned) may point to implantation, which occurs within a few weeks. Others may look at the fetal heartbeat, which is about 3 weeks. I've heard others point to when pain can be felt in the womb, which I understand is around 20 weeks. In my opinion, society should err on the side of caution. If there is a chance you are killing a living human being, you do your best to avoid it. All other questions and circumstances come secondary. I can certainly understand if a pregnancy threatens the mother's life, because in that situation you are trading a life for a life. But I don't see the justification in any other circumstance.

The issue of abortion really comes down to only one question: When does life begin? All of the other discussions about women's rights, health concerns, rape victims, etc. are vitally important. But they mean absolutely nothing until you have answered this question FIRST. When does life begin? Because regardless of the other circumstances surrounding the pregnancy - AT SOME POINT you have to acknowledge the "fetus" has become a living human being. And whatever point you believe life starts (conception? 8 weeks? 5 months? birth?)... then at that very point, abortion is the same as killing a living person. There is no other way around it.

Completely ridiculous and untrue. Conservatives have NEVER been against helping the poor. They have NEVER been against helping the sick. They just don't believe the government is the answer to fixing all of these problems. The government is inefficient, wasteful and corrupt. Absolutely nobody can dispute this. Take a look around and see how your tax dollars are used. Despite the ridiculous amount of money brought in each year, most school districts are failing terribly to properly educate the kids. Highways, bridges and other infrastructure are falling apart. Why would I want to put the ones responsible for this MESS in charge of MORE things? People pushing for free "Medicare for all" have no idea how much this would actually cost them in taxes. And what happens when our government runs out of money to pay for it (like they always do)... Regarding Carlin's comments, I've NEVER heard of a conservative against food stamps, school lunch, limited unemployment benefits or a certain level of welfare. The problem is, all of the government handouts in the world will NEVER succeed in getting anyone out of poverty. History has proven this time and time again. If anything, it creates a culture of people dependent on the government to support them. The only thing that will make a poor person successful, is a good job and a hard work ethic. I would much rather contribute my hard-earned dollars towards a charity of my choice. Or help pay for someone's doctor bills with a Go Fund Me page. Or donate food and clothes to the local food pantry. Or send money to disaster relief. Most of the conservatives I know are VERY generous and compassionate in helping people. They just prefer to do it THIS WAY, instead of supporting yet another government spending spree.

Unless there is a surprise cut or trade, I don't see us adding anyone else that will get significant DE reps. It's pretty clear Beane wanted to add another pass rusher to the mix this offseason. But there just weren't a lot of good free agent options on the market (almost every top DE was franchised), and we didn't have enough early draft resources to address everything. Considering we went into March with needs at four different OL positions, WR, TE, RB, DE, DT and CB... I think we can still consider the offseason a resounding success. In my opinion, our defense was Top 5 after the bye. The only player we lost was Kyle Williams (who wasn't quite the same player anyway), and he was replaced with Ed Oliver. We added more depth at Cornerback, which should make our secondary even more consistent. It would have been nice to add a fierce edge rusher, but I think we'll be OK with the same rotation from last year. At the least, our defense should be the same as in 2018. The key to adding wins to our 6-10 record is the improvement of Josh Allen and the offense.

Based on pre-draft rankings, nobody came close to topping the Jaguars. Josh Allen was ranked between #3-5 on almost every major site. They stayed put and landed him at #7. Jawaan Taylor was a Top 10 player on most sites, and I never saw him lower than about #15. They got him in the 2nd Round.