Juror#8

Not sure this topic is intellectually fair. Maybe. I guess maybe it assumes that egalitarianism found its way into meaningful aspects of the black American experience because Northern Aggression won out. Didn’t happen that way. Brown v Board and it’s progeny started the legal ball really rolling. “All deliberate speed” didn’t do anything for the actionability. Creative jurisprudence had to use Article 1 Section 8 in the 60s in an expansive [read: textually poor] way so black folks could score a square at a convenience store while traveling and/or get laid in their choice of hotels somewhere along the way. That was my mom’s generation. She was proximately impacted by barriers to education, opportunities, etc. We are about a generation and a half (maybe two) removed from racism being countenanced by the law. Now with that said, it is about time for negroes to get along on their own two feet but it’s not unreasonable to still see vestiges. So I both agree and disagree with the op. He or she just presents it in a myopic way.

I think so. Think about that for a second. What is wrong with our politics that everyone is so married to party? Does anyone here not think that if you change Trump’s name to Clinton or Obama, situation remains the same, all the narratives, justifications, arguments, and allegiances wouldn’t swap? That situational ethics ***** is sad. And we do nothing but perpetuate it - these boards, at the dinner table, on tv - we perpetuate this ***** brand of faction politics where right and wrong is a “d” and “r” proposition. Call me what you want but there is something just odious about that.

Well I voted for Romney (just wanted Buddy Roemer on the ticket too). So maybe I’m biased. And I also voted or wrote in B. Clinton, and Obama, and W. Bush and Kasich. So I’m a fan of the independent and politically unaffiliated. I dig it. Indeed brother.

Cosmological constant.

I think the ulterior motives are assumed based on disagreement with his vote. He voted and he provided a reason which I’m not prepared to say is a lie. I’ll say again, that *at least* one of those Senators that you mentioned went with the [paraphrasing] “what he did was very concerning but let’s let the voters make the call on removal at the ballot box” routine - for all intents and purposes punting their constitutional responsibility. With that in mind I’m not convinced that those three (or at least that one) should be the barometer for Romney’s ingeniousness. I agree with you that I don’t think Trump’s actions (though probably calculated and existing somewhere in the penumbra) met the high bar of removal from office. I just think Romney is a good man and I don’t think the vitriol that some have aimed squarely at them seems properly placed. It’s also strange that some who are taking aim at Romney for voicing his opinion and voting consistently with it, are the same ones saying that the left is intolerant. We just should have a better, less accusatory, brand of politics. Are people really happy with these entrenched factions?

If you want to name-call your way through this then ok. If you want to discuss then all the better. I don’t think Trump should have been removed from office for reasons related to my understanding of the incredibly high bar for the execution of that step. The issue here though is why so much hate for Romney. He voted based on appraising the evidence. He knew the vote wouldn’t change the course of next steps. He voted independently and as per his Constitutional responsibility. In his explanation he names faith, conscious, and an agonizing appraisal of the evidence as the deciding factors. In this political climate of factions, vapidity, and popularity contests on both sides, I sorta, kinda dig independence and solemnity.

I believe him when he says that he did it out of conviction. Mitt seems like a principled man of faith and conviction. I didn’t agree with impeachment or removal because I don’t think the allegations, as I understood them, satisfied what I believe to be a very high bar (without some mental gymnastics and to be fair I didn’t think they did for Clinton either). But I don’t have any reason to believe that Romney didn’t appraise the evidence and vote in good conscious.

For folks who talk about how the left being so intolerant of other opinions, and then to demonize Romney, who, by all accounts voted based on his interpretation of the evidence and his conviction is strange indeed. The man used his voice and performed his Constitutional responsibility to cast a vote that he felt was right. This is especially interesting given that there were other Republican senators who said that they feel what Trump did was wrong but punted to the voters to make the decision around whether the wrong justified removal from office. Not that I’m a Constitutional purist or anything but I’ve never seen that assignment of responsibility in the four corners of the document. But back to Romney ... why the hate for a good man?

Why? Why is he a tool? Because he heard the evidence and voted, by all accounts, his conviction? Or is there another reason?

Yea ref. Winner must be Buffalo.

Josh has to figure this ***** out in overtime. Please let this be the tale of three parts. Us. Them. Now us.

Woohoo! White is a beast!

Then the league is off balance. They keep saying “common sense prevails.” I think they want the assumption of the returners intent. But that principally goes against the the way the game should be officiated. It should be officiated based on precision and specifically as it relates to the proper execution of movements and non-movement even. Think about the precision that goes into “what constitutes a catch,” and staying in stance to avoid a penalty. What’s done is done. But I can’t square it.

I’m not. And not because I’m a rabid fan. But because I don’t understand how he “gave himself up.” They keep saying “common sense prevails.” I think they want the assumption of the returners intent. But that principally goes against the the way the game should be officiated. It should be officiated based on precision and specifically as it relates to the proper execution of movements and non-movement even. Think about the precision that goes into “what constitutes a catch,” and staying in stance to avoid a penalty. I can’t reconcile any of that with how they ruled.

How? What was the gesture? How was it communicated? I really want to know because I don’t see it. I think that instead they want to use the “assume his intent” approach which I don’t think should fly in a game of rules and architecture.

Exactly. This. He didn’t waive his hand. So what was the gesture and how did he accomplish it in this case?

What does “giving himself up” mean?

Wow.

Nice sack Jerry!

Run d.

First playoff win in 20-something years looks like it starts with a Josh Allen tuddy catch! Nice! But he took a hit as he entered the end zone. Has to get in quicker and save his knees.

Seems like Dallas nutswinging knows no geographical boundaries. Figures. Enjoy the the win there across the pond fellow Bills fan!

Aced this test. Next.

It's a new morning in Western New York.

Biggest win as I've seen in nearly 3 decades of Buffalo Bills football. I fully anticipate this one to be bested many times over with this regime and these players though. This has indeed been a good Thankgiving. Maybe now we'll get some freakin respect.