BillsFan4

This is from the declassified documents from the ODNI that I posted the link to above. I'd post more form it but we are only allowed to share a few paragraphs on this site - https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf "We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russias goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments." " We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trumps election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence." " We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence (General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks." So, maybe I wasn't 100% right about the NSA concluding with high probability on every single issue. It appears they were only moderately confident on one. I apologize for that. But there is plenty of use of the phrase "high probability" in that document, when referring to Russia and their influence of the election (which all of those intelligence agencies signed off on). Here's what Dan Coats said (head of ONDI appointed by Trump) in another interview - "I think it's publicly known and acknowledged and accepted that Russia definitely did try to influence the campaign," Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats said during his confirmation hearing in February" Coats and other intelligence leaders reiterated that sentiment on May 11 when they told the Senate Intelligence Committee that they were convinced Russia sought to meddle in the 2016 elections. Here's a snippet of that testimony (click on link for testimony) http://www.npr.org/2017/07/07/535803676/trump-is-less-convinced-about-russian-hacking-than-his-intelligence-chiefs-are Here's another interview with Coats - https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/intelligence-director-says-agencies-agree-russian-meddling-n785481 "Daniel Coats, the director of national intelligence, said Friday there is no dissent inside U.S. intelligence agencies about the conclusion that Russia used hacking and fake news to interfere in the 2016 presidential election... ...Other intelligence agencies, such as the U.S. Coast Guards, were not involved, Coats said. But, he added, there was no disagreement inside the intelligence community. Coats was the fourth Trump administration national security official this week to affirm the American intelligence assessment that Russia was behind the 2016 election interference. All spoke at the Aspen forum, a gathering of government officials, security professionals and journalists." Here's James Comey's statement at that June senate hearing - There should be no fuzz on this whatsoever. The Russians interfered in our election during the 2016 cycle. They did it with purpose. They did it with sophistication. They did it with overwhelming technical efforts. And it was an active-measures campaign driven from the top of that government. There is no fuzz on that. It is a high-confidence judgment of the entire intelligence community, and and the members of this committee have have seen the intelligence. It's not a close call. That happened. That's about as un-fake as you can possibly get. Here's what Senator Warner (senate intelligence committee) said during James Comey's hearing - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/08/us/politics/senate-hearing-transcript.html "Were here because a foreign adversary attacked us right here at home, plain and simple, not by guns or missiles, but by foreign operatives seeking to hijack our most important democratic process our presidential election. Russian spies engaged in a series of online cyber raids and a broad campaign of disinformation, all ultimately aimed at sowing chaos to us to undermine public faith in our process, in our leadership and ultimately in ourselves. And thats not just this senators opinion, it is the unanimous determination of the entire U.S. intelligence community. So we must find out the full story, what the Russians did, and, candidly, as some other colleagues have mentioned, why they were so successful. And, more importantly, we must determine the necessary steps to take to protect our democracy and ensure they cant do it again." From everything I've seen there really doesn't seem to be any debate that Russia interfered. There's no media spin on the direct quotes I posted. I don't see how anyone could prove that the ODNI report is BS when much of the classified information that it contained wasn't released to the public, and (although I haven't extensively researched it) I have seen nothing from any legitimate source that proves it was BS. The entire intelligence community seems to back that report, along with many other government officials and many of them are privy to the classified information it contained. There has been more information that has come out since then, too. Now, this doesn't mean Trump has anything to do with it though and that is not what I am saying at all. But there does seem to be a consensus in the intelligence community on russia trying to interfere in our election. Unless I just missed it, I haven't seen any truly credible sources refuting this. I will try to remember to in the Trump Russia thread when I get the chance to check out.

I didn't even know people actually still thought the election was hacked (I'm not saying some don't, I'm just saying I didn't know that was still a thing with some people). I thought that whole myth was put to bed many moths ago when this whole Russia election thing first started. It was, is and always has been about Russia trying to influence our election so Trump wins. The US intelligence community (FBI, CIA, NSA and Office of the Director of National Intelligence) concluded with high probability that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 US election (hence why the US issued sanctions against Russia). (If you want any info on that investigation, here's the declassified report from the ODNI "assessing Russian activities and intentions in recent US elections" - https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf The thing they are investigating is what, if any, part the Trump campaign played in it.

I agree. It was nice to see Watson do this. That's a class act move. But to be fair, many many NFL players donate to charities and help out in their communities. Here's a list of just some of the Buffalo Bills players charitable efforts. It is similar with most other NFL teams, too. NFL players are more active in charitable efforts and in their communities than many people realize. https://www.buffalorumblings.com/2017/9/24/16355250/buffalo-bills-players-support-charities-lesean-mccoy-lorenzo-alexander-colin-kaepernick Edit - here's another list I found with a quick google search. This was the very first result that came up - https://www.sbnation.com/2017/9/29/16375378/nfl-players-charity-donations-jj-watt-hurricane-harvey-patrick-peterson-foundation

I love seeing how legitimately excited he was, and especially like seeing how excited his fellow teammates were for him. That is something I'm noticing a lot of though. I think McDermott's "team first" and "love each other" message is really being taken to heart.

Agreed! Ive said more than once on these boards how encouraging it is that so many of the players the new regime brought in are having such an impact. It gives me a lot of hope for this team's future.

What they're saying about the Bills after week 3 (spoiler, they're saying some good things!) http://www.buffalobills.com/news/article-1/What-theyre-saying-Bills-earn-high-marks-for-Week-3-performance/46cf3547-da7b-41f7-8a4f-e1f04b1a72d1 Here's a sample - "The Sean McDermott formula: The new Bills coach seems to have an unusual amount of personnel power in Buffalo, and he used it well this offseason. He re-made the team's secondary in one offseason with mostly spare parts, just like the Panthers used to do at his old job as defensive coordinator in Carolina. The Bills' secondary has been difficult to throw against for three straight weeks, with rookie Tre'Davious White and safety pickup Jordan Poyer standing out. It's a fundamentally sound defense that tackles and makes opponents earn yards. Combine that defense with a strong start from perennially underrated quarterback Tyrod Taylor, and the Bills were able to take out the Broncos on Sunday to improve to 2-1. The preseason talk of tanking is a memory. Bills ownership fired Rex Ryan because it believed this was a playoff roster. McDermott is doing his best thus far to prove ownership right." That's one of the reasons I originally became a Sean McDermott fan when he was in Carolina (and was thrilled when he was hired by Buffalo). He'd take guys who were looked at as no names or spare parts and turn them into very solid defenders in his scheme. Josh Norman was a 5th round pick that most thought would struggle to even make the team, and a few years later he was looked at as one of the top 2-3 CB's in the NFL. He turned a Carolina defense, that many overlooked and worried would give up too many points, into the #2 defense in the NFL in 2013.

Awesome. Congrats to the kid! He's played very well, especially for a rookie. Maybe the best part is that he also seems to be a great person and total team first guy who seems to have fully bought in here. When you can combine those types of traits with also being a great player on the field, you could have something special... Plus, my hope is that these types of high character guys will be more likely to want to stay in Buffalo when it comes time for their next contract, instead of wanting to run for the spotlight (like Gilmore and other "me first" players we've had over the years)

Bills worked out QB Garrett Grayson, WR Amba Etta-Tawo and 4 other including an OG and OT. http://www.newyorkupstate.com/buffalo-bills/index.ssf/2017/09/buffalo_bills_work_out_wr_amba_etta-tawo_qb_garrett_grayson_4_others_report.html

Haha that was great! Thanks for sharing guys.

I like that Rick Dennison seems to be open to change. Rigid systems in the NFL are less likely to work IMO. You have to be willing to adapt and change to fit the players you have. Hopefully Juan Castillo is willing to do the same thing in the run game. I kind of had a feeling that it would take our offense a few games to get going anyway, especially since they really didn't get any time together in the preseason and all the changes to the WR corps. Same thing happened last year when Rex held the starters out of preseason (and that was their 2nd year in that offense). It was probably even more important to get preseason time this year with the brand new timing based offense.

Ok, I read that federalist article. I agree that some of that stuff seemed unnecessary (assuming it's true). But let's also not pretend that republicans don't do things that hurt the American people, either. There's usually 2 sides to the story though and you really have to research these days to get the whole truth and that's what I try my best to do. I don't have time right now to research everything in that article, but I do remember about the amber alert. The actual amber alert system was never shut down, not for a second. It was just the purely informational site, and it only lasted a day or two from what I remember. They had to shut it down without IT guys there to protect against hacking but brought a furloughed worker back to run it because of the confusion caused by the false reporting that the amber alert system itself was shut down. So it was basically much ado about nothing. The national center for missing and exploited children actually compiles all the amber alert site data and issues the alerts in a national level, and was still functioning (that federalist article is wrong in reporting it was shut down). That Amber Alert.gov site doesn't even list amber alerts. It redirects you to another website for those. Plus each state has their own amber alert system. The government amber alert website is just an informational site that tells you about what an amber alert is, the guidelines for issuing one and other stuff like that. That federal webpage plays no role in finding missing children and It has nothing to do with amber alerts being issued. I'm more than willing to look at information that is based in facts and reality and has verifiable information. When the only sites I can verify the supposed information on are all far right leaning sites, I tend to be skeptical of that information. I try my best to choose valid sources that aren't completely one sided and use verifiable factual information to form my opinions. I try to stay away from the sources that lean far left or far right (which is getting harder and harder these days). i like information sources that just report the facts and leave their opinion out of it (which is also getting harder and harder to find). After doing my own reading, I also like to double check some stuff on sites like Snopes that fact check articles and provide links to all the research they did in their fact checking. As far as Breitbart - they are a notorious fake news site. That is a well documented fact. I view them as one of the problems in this country. They put out so much hateful crap and have their readers brainwashed. I admit, I am immediately skeptical of anything from Breitbart, and for good reason IMO.

I don't know, it seemed to me you were talking about educafion in general. How does one measure political education anyway? How do you know that these people are more politically educated? What proof do you have? Or is it just purely your assumption? And what you said about how they want people scared that they are going to destroy their life easily applies just as much, or more, to the Republican Party. They have been fear monger if for years and years. I also disagree that the Democratic Party is not for blue collar. They protect unions (reps have tried attacking them). They don't slash taxes for the rich and try to push trickle down economics like republicans (economic policies that heavily favor the rich) that just amass more wealth with the rich as the poor get poorer . They protect workers rights. They fight for the poor. They want higher/living wages for workers. They fought for medical care for 9/11 first responders even amid republican filibusters against it. Etc etc The republican and democratic parties have flipped. Long ago the Republican Party was the party of the people and the democrats catered to the rich. Now it is the opposite (IMO and many others, anyway). I can see why you would support some of these republican policies if you are rich or own a business, but other than that it seems to me that in many instances you are kind of voting against your own self interests if you are the average middle or lower class. Neither party is without its flaws, but I tend to side more with democrats these days, where as I used to side more with republicans. Totally agree that both parties have been failing America for a long time now. I also agree that Tump took some democratic ideas and made them his own. Most of what you said I agree with. Some of what Trump said actually doesn't sound that bad. I just have no faith in Trump to actually do what he says. He flip flops so much. He will say one thing, on camera no less, and then deny he ever said it. He has spent much of his life ripping off working class people (as documented by his many scam businesses, court cases and stories from those he has wronged). I have zero reason to believe that he has suddenly had a change of heart. He has been the least charitable billionaire in the entire world. I see him as a con artist who took office mainly for his (and his companies) own good. Edit - I also wanted to say that I never meant any insult to blue collar workers nor do I think they are all poorly educated (and just because someone didn't go to college doesn't mean they are not smart, anyway). I have tons of respect for them. I was one for many years. My father was one for many years. My grandfather was too, and all of us are college educated. I was only addressing that one specific comment about uneducated democrats.

I think he was just trying to bait me. At least I hope so, anyway. Nobody believes that BLM and the KKK are the exact same thing.

http://www.npr.org/2016/09/13/493763493/charts-see-how-quickly-white-non-college-voters-have-fled-the-democratic-party "When Pew sliced the electorate into different demographic groups, they found that white men and white people without a college degree have made a remarkable recent swing from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party." Non college educated white voters went from 45% republican and 44% democrat in 2008, to 59% republican and 33% democrat in 2016. Remember, Trump even said it himself (in one of his rambling speeches) how much he loves poorly educated voters! lol

For the third time now, the investigation wasn't just interpreting data. Maybe try actually reading the links provided before deciding they're invalid.

I don't see it that way at all. I think that's a false moral equivalence. White supremacy is not = to BLM. The way I see it - A leader of white supremacists (and nazi sympathizer) who identifies with what that group represents (including that the white race is superior to minorities, that they don't deserve all the same rights whites do, that we need a "peaceful ethnic cleansing" & that wants to create an all white homeland (to name just a few things)) is not equivalent to someone who believes that black lives matter as much as white lives do, openly welcomes those of different races into their group and thinks that everyone should be treated equal. I do not agree with everything BLM says or condone every action they take but their guiding principles are much different than those of a hate group like the white supremacists. Not exactly sure what you mean by BLM set up residence in the White House, but if you mean Obama then I totally disagree. Also, I had no idea what you talking about when you said he "vowed to make citizens pay as deep a price as possible". So I looked it up. It took me a while to find anything. The only thing I really came across was something on Brietbart (the poster child of fake news) and a couple similar sites, that they called "shutdown theatre". They referrred to the 2013 govt shutdown and then proceeded to twist words and distort the truth. I'm not even going to bother trying to argue against it if that's what your referring to. I'll just say that I don't agree and I don't really see how congress failing to pass legislation to keep non essential government functions running, mainly because republicans attached a very polarizing and very partisan piece of legislation to it, is Obama's fault anyway. And I honestly don't understand how you can view Obama as the most divisive president of your lifetime. Even if you were only born the day Obama took office that still wouldn't be true. lol We obviously see most things completely differently Tasker and grin reaper. I acknowledge your opinions, but I know I'll never sway them so I'll just respectfully end this conversation.

I agree. I like the way Obama handled things much better. He invited 2 heads from the BLM movement to the White House to meet with a range of law enforcement officials and community leaders to learn more about their movement and so both sides could learn more about the different challenges each side was facing, and try to begin to discuss solutions. Thats not Trump's style though. He'd rather pour gas on the dying embers and reignite the fire. I don't think he gives a rat's arse about what these players are protesting either. This whole thing has definitely become counter productive though. IMO The players need to pick s new way to protest because kneeling during the anthem gives people a built in excuse to get angry and not listen. But even when Thr Browns decided not to kneel and instead show a video before (or was it after?) the anthem, a lot of the same people still got mad, so... Having an honest and civil discussion where both sides were actually truly open to what the other was saying would be a much better approach/method, but I don't see that happening.

I didn't say it was gone completely, just that it was more or less dying out. One player kneeled during that game, and one raised their fist. So, 2 players total. http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/249755/nfl-players-who-protested-during-the-national-anthem-in-week-3 (bottom of the page)

Many seem to think that system does still discriminate against people based on their race, though. That's a large part of what some of these players are protesting. I am really pretty tired out on that whole debate though, so I'll just leave it there. I do agree with much of what you're saying about equality though.

I agree, it's concerning. But Juan Castillo is the run game coordinator, and McDermott has said in interviews that Castillo is the one who puts the run game plan together. So maybe it's not on Dennison (if it does continue to be an issue) is all I'm saying.

Here is what the NFL players are currently doing and trying to do, if you're interested. We are not allowed to paste large sections of articles so I will just provide the link. It is a letter that was written by the NFL players commission and sent to the league. It outlines the basis of what they are currently doing to bring about change in their communities as well as a call to action. It's really a pretty interesting read - https://sports.yahoo.com/memo-4-players-sent-nfl-commissioner-roger-goodell-030818178.html

I don't believe in the bogeyman. lol I know. But that doesn't mean they automatically are given the same treatment. It has gotten much better than where we were just over 50 years ago when segregation was still legal, but we still have a long way to go. Huh? Are you mad that the protest has evolved from being mainly about police shootings? Be mad at Trump. Kneeling had more/less died out around the NFL until he opened his big mouth and purposely said some very inflammatory comments. He has to know this is exactly what would happen. Too bad he wasn't willing to willfully condemn the white supremacists and nazi sympathizers in Charlottesville in the same way. It took him days of being shamed into it to condemn them and then he pretty much immediately walked back his remarks condemning them.

Yes. I read the entire article. I get what you are saying, and I somewhat agree. They weren't illegally keeping kids out, but that judge also ruled that they weren't doing enough to desegregate either. But judge still did have to force them to combine school districts to finally desegregate. He said no more excuses. Before that the school was 99.7% black (or whatever the exact # was). I know what you're saying though and I do somewhat agree. I get that it wasn't against the law for those kids to go to each other's schools. Maybe it wasn't the best example... It's not an example of people fleeing poor neighborhoods though, because those people never lived in that neighborhood to begin with. I don't know why you assume the black neighborhood must be poor. Like the article said, white people live in on one side of the tracks and black people on the other. They've never lived together. The white people didn't want their kids going to school in the black schools because they didn't feel those schools provided the same level of education to their kids. To me, this is one of the points of the article - "The delay in segregation has deprived generations of students of the constitutionally-guaranteed right of an integrated education," Judge Debra Brown wrote. "Although no court order can right these wrongs, it is the duty of the District to ensure that not one more student suffers under this burden." And also that this has been going on for 50 years. The court has been trying to get them to desegregate. In just the 1980's, according to the courts, they built school districts designed to keep the schools segregated and they assigned faculty based on race - "But Cleveland agreed to allow black students into white schools, and vice versa. However, the federal government later alleged that the district established "dual residency" policies to cheat and send students to schools based on their race instead of their neighborhood. The district also built new schools in locations designed to keep black students in all-black schools, the U.S. said in a motion in the '80s, and assigned faculty based on race." Also, there was also more to my post than the thing you focused on. My overall point is that racial discrimination is a fight that has been going on for a long time and still continues to this day. That it only ended barely over 50 years ago and even then the laws to enforce it had no teeth. It wasn't until the years that followed that those laws were given the power to be truly enforced. That fight still continues to this day. We aren't that far separated from those days and many were brought up,in environments where it was normal to discriminate.

Because they hate inequality, they hate everything great in this country? Sorry, but inequality is not what makes this country great. What has made this country great and continues to do so to this day are the people who have fought and changed the problems in this country. From our founding fathers that fought for the freedom that we all enjoy & and the soldiers who fought to protect those freedoms, to the women and minorities that fought for equal rights in the 60's to those that continue to fight for it today. This country is not just love it or leave it. We wouldn't be the USA if that were the case.

Considering that in 2016 there were still school(s) in Mississippi that were segregated until a judge ordered them (once again) to desegregate, I'd say we aren't quite there yet... not IMO anyway. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/05/17/478389720/after-50-year-legal-struggle-mississippi-school-district-ordered-to-desegregate This is only one small example of stuff like this that still exists. Honestly, I'm not sure that racism will ever fully go away though (until the human race is one big mash up of all the races) But right now we are only barely over 50 years from segregation and legal discrimination. It was only in 1964 that the Civil Rights Act was passed to finally outlawed discrimination by race, religion, sex etc and it was pretty weak when it first passed. It wasn't given the true power to enforce these new laws until the years that followed. There were many court cases (supreme and otherwise) in the decades that followed to fight the discrimination that continued to happen. We still to this day see court cases concerning discrimination. There are still many people who were brought up in environments where it was normal to be prejudice toward minorities. It's going to take more time, but we are generally moving in the right direction.