transplantbillsfan

Not to you, otherwise I would have made you understand it better. It's a shame what you're trying to do here rather than concede your misunderstanding.

Oh. You're just misunderstanding what I said. Why did you assume the breaking of the filibuster was one of the precedents he broke? That sentence didn't require that connection, but you assumed it nonetheless in your seemingly overwhelming desire to belittle anyone with different views than your own. The tunnel vision your arrogance is causing is staggering. I just did. She said Republicans. That is all.

McConnell's refusal to even bring Obama's Supreme Court nominee Merick Garland up for 10 full months is unprecedented. And there are examples of Supreme Court nominees in election years being elected to the court by the opposing party. If you guys are referring to Reid getting rid of the Filibuster... well, considering the sheer volume of filibusters (something like half in all of American history... an unprecedented number) used on Obama appointed judges by Republicans, good for Harry. Hopefully the Democrats have the balls to increase the Supreme Court once they regain power. It used to be 10, anyway. Democrats problems with Republicans is that they just don't play nearly as dirty as them.

But a lovable one

The Republicans sold their souls for control of the judicial branch. And ya gotta give it to them. They were organized, smart, and methodical about it. This has been the plan for years and it's the reason sooOOooo many of these guys who "hated" Trump during the primaries and before are some of his strongest backers now.... hellooooo Lindsey Graham! Gotta hope the Democrats learned their lessons. Since McConnell has broken so many precedents and gotten rid of the filibuster, if Dems regain the Senate they might as well increase the Supreme Court by 4 seats (nothing in the Constitution about 9 Justices, afterall) and let the Democratic President appoint them in 2021.

Okay, well that's incorrect on the whole, then. The Bills are one of the top 5 teams in the NFL in terms of pass % in the 1st half. But I do have legitimate concerns with how McDermott and Daboll manage a lead.

Still plenty of arrogance over here I see. Hopefully some of you start to come around so you aren't completely floored when Democrats take the Presidency (and starting to look more and more like the Senate is very much in play) in 2021

The President must be pregnant, too... I guess. 2,000 troops to Saudi Arabia to defend them against Iran. Follow the money. What a jackass.

They were ALREADY THERE!!! You're 2nd bolded statement just proving to me what I've believed all along about this sub forum. You care more about winning rhetorical arguments than you do about seeing or even thinking about the other side of the argument. Proves you are exactly what you've accused me of being: Intellectually dishonest Pulling our troops out of Syria at some point in the near future was fine. But not like this.

I mean... I really do wonder... is this trolling? Honestly, do you truly believe this was a simple "Either/Or" choice or are you at least subconsciously aware of how stupid this is? Rhetorical question obviously since I won't get an honest answer.

It's pretty incredible that some of our friends over here actually feel this way. Just sad.

This completely ignores the complexities of this situation and all geopolitical situations, for that matter. You assess the world and your relation and reaction to it on a case by case basis, always. You let your guiding principles guide, but not dictate your actions. Your pregnancy analogy is really, really stupid as it's completely irrelevant.

The back and forth discussion of milking the clock? I don't know how many pages back that discussion goes, but that's what I saw in the 7 or 8 back and forth posts between you guys. Whatever I might have been wrong on as far as the discussion between the two of you goes, I do believe in general that a Sean McDermott coached football team will never be a team that averages 30+ points because of his approach to the game, which I do believe involves protecting a lead once you have it, which involves milking the clock more with more running and short, safe passes, which results in fewer explosive plays and less points. I'm not a fan of that approach. But I do think that's been McDermott's approach as a Head Coach.

Again, you're making what happened early this week a binary choice. It wasn't. There were much better and more diplomatic ways to do this than taking the rug out from our Kurdish allies and abandoning them. Whatever else your argument might be, are you disagreeing that the Kurds had prior knowledge it would happen this week?

Yes. 3rd quarter is absolutely the problem. I saw Allen's numbers in the 3rd quarter in an article I think in The Athletic recently and they are utterly atrocious. On the flip side, his numbers in just the other 3 quarters are really impressive. I don't know what's going on at the half, but it needs to be fixed.

I think the "protect the lead" generally conservative type play calling is a philosophy that scores fewer points, don't you?

I think (just a wild guess) what he is pointing to is that in 3 of our 5 games we got a lead in the 1st half, looked like we might score a bunch and then stumbled offensively quite a bit in the 3rd quarter, for any given number of reasons. That poster might believe that a slight or major shift in game plan is the primary reason for the slowdown. The old school "protect the lead"mentality. Just a guess.

Man. I sure will give you your undying devotion to Trump. Have fun with that. You clearly don't see the inherent problem here. This wasn't a binary choice and, for some ungodly reason, that's what you're making it out to be.

It's not oversampling. There's a reason for that number. I'm confident you can figure it out.

It's not just the US And read what I wrote. I didn't say they've declared formal war... but does it matter?

26???? Behind Mariota, Darnold and Mayfield???

Read my very next post please That's not the only alternative, but this is largely what the United States has been through the last century. I get that there's this desperate attempt to turn inward because of big bad globalization, but abandoning a force like the Kurds that the US largely trained and who were massively responsible for (as Donald Trump would claim we have) "defeating ISIS" is misguided, short-sighted, and goes against American values of protecting our allies.

I see your misunderstanding. What I'm suggesting is that Trump is a jackass who just allowed Turkey to declare war on neighboring Syria because we opened the door for them to do that. And regarding your 2nd paragraph... those of you on the right are Trump's biggest critics? Oh man... thanks for that... didn't have my good laugh today, yet.

Funny. I said war? Weird... don't see that anywhere in what I said. The onus of these attacks is clearly primarily on Turkey. Trump, who stood behind a locked door for them to happen, just unlocked, opened the door and walked out to let them in. And I think it's strange for you Trump folks to defend NATO when that's one of those alliances it's pretty clear agent Orange could do without. If our troops remained and Turkey attacked the way they are now, that would have been an act of war against America on THEIR part. And I wonder if that's what Erdogan said he was going to do in that phone call and our paper tiger President just rolled over. But these economic threats on his part right now look reeEEAAAlly effective