Juror#8

No. The country is becoming appreciably more utilitarian though. And that doesn't have a necessary political affiliation. "Whats the aggregate pleasure of some thing after deducting the consequent suffering?" Or in context, how much better will it be for a grip of people to get free beneficial **** (education, services, etc) when it will just be the rich and Wall Street who foot the bill? That's utilitarian thinking. And it seems like the country is trending in that direction and away from the more left/right ideological demagoguery that has been a staple of our politics for 50 years. I think that sense of utilitarian thinking explains a lot of the left/right super anti-establishment fervor ... which has come to drive our current political environment.

I see that my two year absence hasn't cured your proclivity to not be able to comprehend any salient point. By the way, please refer to points #1 and #2 above. Peace yo.

1. Maybe you thought that you were; unfortunately though, you weren't. But for your peace-of-mind lets just say that it depends on how well you can deceive yourself and with whom you can conspire in that effort. 2. You missed the sarcasm. I know that you're not anything "Washington" or "insider." Far from it. In the same way that you're not in any position to infer that people are idiots or "unsophisticated" because they would buy what Trump is selling (and yes, the suggestion is clear with regard to your references to "Ponzi schemes," etc.). But you werent able to address that part of my crticism of you. You opted for the "beatnik" route. I can dig it though daddy-o. You should brush up on your posting skills - your platitudes and diversions don't really work in conversations with me. They just scream "not ready." 3. I'm not familiar with the world of finance. I just know that Trump is a billionaire. You obviously know his financial circumstances and the intricacies around his rise to commercial and financial uber success better than most. That's good for you and Im sure that it's a feather in your, already decorated, cap. And you would be correct in both form, fashion, and result.

Called Iowa for Cruz. Big get for him. I wonder if he can quell Trumps nh momentum. Probably not though ...

I just realized that we are debating two separate points: 1. You're discussing why you don't like Trump and why he shouldn't be president. 2. I'm discussing why the American people have embraced him as a candidate for president. Subtle difference but different just the same. Micro vs. Macro. But I'm interested to continue reading why you and others here feel that you may know what's best for the American people and why you know better than them what's best for them and their families. Because my local Rolex a.d., who made himself into a millionaire thirty times over with $7,000 and a history degree from American University, and who is a rabid Donald Trump supporter, probably doesn't know what a ponzi scheme is, or, for that matter, what "snake oil" refers to. So please continue educating the country; please bestow thine own wisdom. This forum has proven to be an accurate bellwether ... what with the fidelity of predictions around the 2012 presidential campaign outcome. I'm not sure that a more accurate tenor of the country's interests and direction, or a more true complexion of the country's ideological makeup, or a more precise demographic composition, exists more so than it does here at "tsw" and specifically the "ppp" sub forum. They should gallup this B word. Incidentally, you've worked in politics, right? You understand the gritty, dirty, gully parts of the legislative process. You have an intimate grasp of where you can push and with whom you can pull in order to get **** accomplished in Washington. You're juiced in. Why the !@#$ are you even here? Shouldn't you be at hawk and dove drinking a blue moon sanz the orange and captivating everyone with your command of Washington politics and your unparalleled understanding of what middle-America needs. Why are you on ppp pontificating to a bunch of folks? Shouldn't you be practicing excellence for some think tank that needs to better understand what America needs to be happy and successful, since you've proven to me and this forum that you have an intimate understanding of that topic area - between your various non sequiturs and you're ad hominem attacks that you're passing as "analysis." Hold on, you Ld'd after college right? My bad, grad school where you wowed your professors with erudite discussion of the "endogenous model of international trade network formation and the effect on domestic political outcomes." Better yet, you know better than most the impact of socio-political **** because national political decisions affect you uniquely more than they do the "idiots" who would vote for Trump. I just think that you're wasting your talents on this small of a community - notwithstanding its undeniable geo-political influence.

Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, Obama ... They were all careful and skilled politicians. None were even marginally "Trump-like." They were all politicians in the very traditional sense of the word. Even former governor and actor Reagan. But yet they all presided over presidencies within which the majority of the country, for a preponderance of their time in office, were dissatisfied with the direction of the country. Is some of that dissatisfaction environmental and circumstantial? Sure: wars, international ****, blow and pusssssy. But tell me what about Cruz, Rubio, Bush, Christie, Kasich that's appreciably different stylistically, policy-wise, experientially, or with regard to their articulated vision for the direction of the country that is fundamentally and principally different than Obama, Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2, or Clinton? (query #1) I challenge you to do that. And if you can't identify fundamental and meaningful differences, then answer what difference then do you anticipate for the next 8 years ... (query #2) But now answer query #1 for Trump instead.

Thanks bro. This is one I'm passionate about and I'm glad that others are too. It doesn't mean I'm not compassionate towards those who have lost loved ones through gun violence; I'm just more passionate about protecting my family. I need to make that shirt: "my passion for my protection doesn't mean a lack of compassion for your loss." Or something like that ...

So what you're saying is that you don't believe what he is saying that he is going to do and you think that he is a liar. You also think that he is only effective because he is selling youth elixir to the geriatric and wisdom juice to the young and inexperienced. Ok. You don't like him personally or stylistically and feel that he is a blowhard. Ok. I'm not disagreeing with you nor am I saying that he is going to save the country. But what I am saying is that his brand and candidacy is an original one and the rest of the field are carbon copies of each other and caricatures of their own selves. For kicks watch the 2008 republican gop debates (I have two recorded on dvd that I would be willing to send to you). The candidates say the exact same things. Exactly. It's like playing pink Floyd over "Wizard of Oz" at the second roar of the lion. It's uncannily familiar and repetitive. It's the same ****. They say the same ****. Their about the same **** ... every year, cyclically and ad infinitum. Trump may not bring anything that he claims. But at least the **** that he says is offered genuinely and without the type of background noise, distortion, prevarication, and hedging that every other candidacy, every other year, seems to offer in spades. Every other candidate is saying what he is saying. They're just indirect, and offer allusions, and express their "sales tactic" with more political adroitness. They are all trying to tap into the central nerve of the country's dissatisfaction. That's why theyre all complaining about "Washington" (even though they're mostly in congress) and distancing themselves from anyone who looks "establishment" ... unless they need money. Trump is just doing it better. And I believe "better," in this context, relates to his comfortability being himself and expressing his unadulterated beliefs rather than the other candidates who filter themselves through some instrumentality of risk-averse political correctness that is designed to sustain their political efficacy and sustainability past this election cycle. Cruz, Rubio, and Christie are thinking as much about being viable in 2020-2024 as they are about winning now. So much calculation and hedging in the **** they say. They are professional political candidates and the country is over that ****. I believe that the country can detect Trump's sincerity even as its articulated maniacally and indelicately. In contrast, it seems that you believe that he is saying whatever he needs to and there is no substance behind his words. I guess we will see which one is correct - your incredulousness or the country's embracing of a sui generis political type. For the record, I may be willing to see if that level of 'whatever you want to call it' will translate into a different direction that the country hasn't experienced during the last 50 years of carbon copy politicians. And maybe, just maybe, Trumps "tapping into blah blah ..." just honesty reflects how he feels about ****.

Sorry to hear that there was a home invasion in your neighborhood. I'm just glad that you and yours are ok. My grandmother's home in North Carolina was broken into about 2 months ago when they were on vacation. My cousin was staying there while she was out of town and returned back there from work at 1 in the morning (she is a bartender) to electronics and jewelry missing. The neighbor said that they saw activity in the the home about 30 minutes before she got back and assumed it was her. That is scary to think about. And that's the simple point that anti-gun folks miss. "Yes" guns are dangerous and are used to attack and to hurt people. Unfortunately some people use them very irresponsibly. But they also serve a more frequent and regular function of protection and deterrence which, in my mind, outweighs the bad things for which they are [rightfully] implicated as the instrumentality causing harm. In order for someone to want to restrict access to guns and, in support of that effort, bring up statistics of mass shootings, etc., they have to similarly be willing to mitigate, or straight-forward deny, those benefits of protection and security that the average citizens enjoys through gun ownership. Unfortunately there are "hunters" (as you call them) who will gladly take advantage of the meek and unprepared if at all possible. And like you, I'm going to protect myself from those folks.

His speeches haven't been empty; you just don't like the content or his delivery. And that's fine. What I do feel is that they have been replete with very matter of fact ideas for the direction of the country. He tells it narratively and familiarly. And most folks don't dig that. He is also a narcissist and that imbrues his prescriptions with an unmistakable tinge of "insincerity." But that notwithstanding, he talks in a way that relates to the listener. He rarely equivocates. He is plain-spoken and direct. The trend has been to vote for a candidate because the candidate *appears* versed rather than because the voter truly understands the issue and the nuances around making resolution to the issue materialize a certain way. For example, Cruz and Rubio have been fighting for months about their stances and their various level of equivocation around "immigration." To some the depth of that debate appears erudite and consequential. And the voter will ultimately make a decision on a combination of 1. what their website's open-ended platitude is around that issue and 2. how well they explained their myriad inconsistencies around that issue in a 30 second window during the debate. Seriously, that's how most folks vote: what the website says and how well can you explain your stance that existed before some strategist said that that stance won't play well in a national context. In contrast, Donald Trump put a perspective around it at the outset that people understood. He plans to do ______. If you don't like _____ then don't vote for him. But that's his very emphatic plan for it. It leaves the equivocation and the "if this, then that" out of the discussion and focuses on what he intends to do. The voter understands that transparency. They don't care how it gets done, they just want ______ to be handled like _____. Because the "hows" are an uncertainty. Too dependent on legislative meat-grinding. And that's why Obama hasn't been able to move through promises and initiatives. Trump could sit there and get into the minutia of policies that will never happen or aspirational initiatives that will get gridlocked - incidentally like every other politician over the last 50 years. But what has that accomplished? How satisfied has the country been with the traditional political template - party notwithstanding? You may not like it and you may not think that his confidence is justified; but he is at least he is saying something that doesn't hang on some !@#$ing "if." He is putting himself out there and making himself accountable to a stance. And he has been since day 1. Not since the debate started or the caucuses were nigh. Day !@#$ing 1. I dig that ****. Damn the torpedoes type ****. And politics hasn't seen that type of personality in 50-60 years. At the end of the day that is my opinion on his candidacy. You feel differently. Cool. I respect that. I just don't agree with your assessment. And the whole thing about him being bad at business except that he effectively built his brand is similar to saying that *if* your aunt had a dickkkk she would be your uncle. What does that even mean? He built his business and became very successful doing it. Part of business is marketing, negotiation, image, and understanding an audience and what they want. And then satisfying that market. In fact, I would say that that's the largest part of effectiveness in business. And those skills are translatable to politics. So your statement was a non-statement.

Ok this is interesting. And I have a lot of friends who think like you. I may be the strangest gun owner, philosophically, that you'll ever meet. And before you read on, I'm not part of any "echo chamber." Read my posts here. I've squared off with some of the same people that you have around myriad political issues. Most who post here are good, intelligent, knowledgeable folks who may differ from you philosophically but who will also force you to think in a way that you've never thought before. That's good for you. Some here are thin-skinned cry babies. Incidentally, there are even some folks here who have publicly blacklisted me because of my unique style of argumentation and insistence and views on ****. I dig that sh!t; its intoxicating. But that should show you that I'm not part of any "echo chamber." Anyway, I have my concealed carry permit and I really really like handguns. I'm surgical on a zombie paper target with my p226 and recently just bought a .460 smith just cuz. I don't even mother!@#$ing hunt. I think gun manufacturers should make more guns and citizens should be more armed. Ok so back to what I was saying ... I own guns, well, simply for protection. I'm not someone who will try to convince you of the originalist intent of the founding fathers and whether or not they contemplated the type of organized community protection apparatus (no, not "apparati," just lengthen the vowel for the plural pronunciation) that we have now - because, in truth, they probably didn't. Nor will I try to argue that they didn't think that arming citizens was a good check against the chance of a resurgent effort at monarchical rule ... which, incidentally, will never happen. The "reasons" for the second amendment are probably stale now. I get it; you get it. Fine. Let's move on and talk about brother Jeremy. So what is the case for pragmatic gun ownership? Well here it is: other people have them, bad people have them; I'm not comfortable knowing that and being unprepared and unarmed in the event of one of those bad people trying to encroach upon my ****. So I own guns - a lot of them. That's it. It isn't more poetic than that. Just straightforward Jeremy Bentham pragmatism brother. So, that is the principle underlying my gun ownership. So are they dangerous? Yep, they sure are. But I'll also say that their utility outweighs their individual civilian danger ... much like a car, which is also dangerous. Guns hurt people; but guns also protect. Vehicles hurt people; vehicles also transport. Don't exalt the utility of one while suppressing or minimizing the utility of the other just to score a point. They are all tools calculated to perform certain objectives and have inherent risks associated with them. And they're also not going anywhere. So instead of complaining about their omnipresence, focus on you. Because at the end of the day, let's be square, you're worried about getting shot by some loon with a handgun. I'll save you the suspense, neither the "loon" nor the "handgun" are going anywhere. Unfortunately those variables are outside of your control. But what is within your control is your ability to protect you and your family from both by being an armed citizen instead of an easy target. That's pragmatism brotato chip. Either get on or get off; but if you want to !@#$ her in the ass, just know you might see some shiiiiiiiit sometimes.

Thanks bro. I've been here every day. Just reading people's thoughts and occasionally with the urge to opine. I think that's a good thing. Right? *cheers*

Donald Trump is going to win the republican nomination because everyone else follows the "politician" template - carefully manicured personalities, platitudinous talking points and rampant disingenuousness. The majority of Americans feel that that hasn't worked for them or their lot in life. They recognize the formula now and the accompanying trends as it relates to their individual circumstance. Donald Trump is a grand-stander and a bloviator and megalomaniacal ... but he is brutally lucid. And I think that people feel that, everything else notwithstanding, at least they know where they stand with him and what they'll get with him as an executive. And that's more that they can say for any other candidate who typically has the obligatory "candidate" voice, only to be followed by the omnipresent post-election reality (incidentally it reminds me of a conversation that I once had with Mike Dukakis in La in 2000 when he discussed a conversation that he had post-election with H.w. Bush about his "no new taxes" promise; but I digress). So if they've been largely dissatisfied with the direction of the country anyway (country dissatisfied 31 of the last 35 years: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1669/general-mood-country.aspx ) and that modal dissatisfaction has been historically applicable equally to Dems and repubs, then why not take the chances with someone who defies the traditional political template - figuring that the disadvangeous results are likely the outcome of following the same candidate formula. Why keep putting the personification of the same political diagram in office - distinguished by only a handful of [comparatively] marginally meaningful socio-political issues - and hoping for some appreciable level of change, all the while complaining about politicians every 4 years when that sense of existential change hasn't materialized for you in the way once envisioned ... If the results don't change when you start changing people and parties every few years, then maybe it's the process with how they've all been selected that is the problem. So then the question becomes, who is the least willing to adapt/conform to that process/formula? Who is the most resistant to the normal institutional selection protocols and mores? And that's so Trump. And I get that. I !@#$in get that. The country is exhausted after a really bad Bush presidency and a really underwhelming and unfulfilling current presidency and they want something that works. And to be fair to Trump we have no clue what he will do or how he will govern the country. He is not "on script." And there is a something about that that's refreshing, mostly because every other candidate, as interesting and diverse as they've been individually, have followed the established political formula, and eventually governed similar to their predecessor - party notwithstanding. All of them for the better part of the last 5 decades. They're beholden to the same factions, agents, and monied interests, as every one else has been, to a meaningful degree, for nearly 50 years. That has been the common denominator - conformity - saying the same **** in debates, the same **** in interviews, the same **** during the campaigns, promising the same ****, and complaining about the same ****. So for everything else that Trump may be, I don't think that he is a puppet. He does his ****, his way, unapologetically ... and he has been globally successful with that formula. And though he is bombastic as ****, I believe that his "way" is translatable as a political tool now, in this current atmosphere. If he can be similar to the last president considered to be a bombastic, uncompromising bully who was a "my way or the highway" type executive (Lyndon Johnson) then methinks this country may be in good shape under Trump's watch. So that's where I find myself during this election year. And while you mo!@#$ers are sleeping, I'm spittin fire on this keyboard. You lazy mo!@#$ers.

For those who were here in 10-11, the volume of posts in the 2011 draft thread imploring the panthers to take Newton, so the Bills wouldn't be tempted to make that "mistake," was stunning. One of the few times that it seemed as if people had something against Newton personally that then implicated their football appraisal of him. And for an entertaining read, check out the "all Newton all the time" thread from 2011: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/129481-all-newton-all-the-time/ Despite the fact that many realized Newton's generational talent, I'll sum up the sentiments of many of the board's other members here: 1. Newton sucks 2. He will be out of the nfl in 2 years 3. He is the next Jamarcus Russell 4. He is immature and will be a rapist 5. He is not good at football and will be a career backup. Oh yea, and someone said that he would eat his shoe, or something like that, if Newton had a better career than Tim Tebow. Hopefully threads like this will be instructive and enlightening come draft time 2016.

Indeed.

There is a typically understood rule that you don't start threads while the game is on; however since this game may already be over I felt as if there was no time like the present: If you read back through my posts over the last 5 years I mentioned the possibility of tanking the season for draft position. The erudite on this board quickly responded that the team "is learning how to win" and that valiantly winning meaningless games provided some psychological edge that could be beneficial in later seasons. It's been 3 years since my last "tank the season" gem. But I'm advocating for it again. It needs to happen. We haven't "learned to win" and that's silly anyway since football teams are such a dynamic assembly of individual parts that leave, get traded, and are cut. A nucleus typically stays together 3-5 years and that's if you're lucky. So a team "learning how to win" denies the reality that in football, there is so much fluidity and so many moving parts that any "lesson" becomes attenuated at best. Then there is the claim by the more learned on the board that "with the same idiots drafting it doesn't matter if we pick earlier we will !@#$ up the selection anyway ..." Here is the issue with that, I would much rather trust my odds that an idiot can successfully select the diamond if there are 20 diamonds amongst 100 pieces of coal versus 10 diamonds amongst 200 pieces of coal. Seriously, simple probability. Nothing overly complex. Whether you think that our front office has the capacity to draft well or not, the chances are still better that we will find better, more meaningful talent (even if the f.o. closes their eyes and picks a random player card), if we draft 7th versus 15th. Because more available talent exists in the earlier part of the draft. And also, who is to say who will be making the decisions in April? **** Whaley, Brandon, Rex, et cetera could all be gone. So that's why I say, play some scrubs and evaluate for next season. I know they won't do that, but it should happen. Because it is yet another rebuilding year. And this team needs young talent in some critical positions. Badly.

Thanks. I always check the site about 30 minutes after the game to read Bill's thoughts. I pray that he recovers well.

Bill will be in my prayers. Get well soon bro.

I agree with you - particularly on #15 and #9. Not ready to turn my back on Ryan; but he certainly runs an undisciplined squad.

Unbelievable.

Pathetic.

Hopefully so too will Ron Darby. And I like our secondary versus their receivers.

Completely different situations. Both RG3 and Kaep were in their first or second years when they were handed the keys to the Superleggera. Tyrod sat and learned behind Flacco in a development scenario with a well run, well managed, and well coached organization that that didn't have the same stain of "losing" that afflicted this organization for 15 years. Tyrod learned behind Flacco as the "next man up" on a team that made 3 playoff appearances, 2 AFC North division titles, 1 AFC Championship, and 1 Super Bowl win. He was groomed to be prepared to step in and manage the team that was experiencing that level of sustained success. Back to RG3 and Kaep ... both thrived in an, at that point, nascent read option offense that was quickly figured out by the league. Neither qb has been able to principally recover the from that; nor has either qb shown any type of adaptability to succeed consistently outside of well choreographed "package plays." Tyrod is a pocket passer and looks to pass first.

Yes Ryan has beaten those pesky Pats. And that occassion inspired the greatest 1 minute interview ever: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJshw2Axsqc

I just knew that Rex would stop the short precision passing game at all cost and sell out the big play. Id take the odds that the latter could not beat man coverage consistently.