Prickly Pete

They are both awful, but I have only read your opinion of them personally, what about policies? I prefer Trump's policies overall, so I favor him. I think Trump negotiates like a businessman (as opposed to a politician), who makes high demands, everything, all of it, first, and then compromises. That is why some of his positions seem extreme. I also believe that virtually all his proposals will be stonewalled by Congress. Hillary on the other hand, is way more secretive, and insidious. She has the influence to get her proposals through, and a bunch of complicit politicians lined up (and paid up) to assist her. Hillary has big plans, all in place, ready to spring on us. Trump is starting from scratch, with what looks to be very little support, even from his own party.

And she is the most corrupt presidential nominee in our entire lifetime, the worst of the worst. I don't like Trump, but I at least can hope he will let his Staff help him, and hope he doesn't mess up too much. With Hillary, we're !@#$ed.

Apparently, they both lie. But while Trump evades discussing how much he has paid in taxes, Hillary lies about exposing classified information to foreign countries while Secretary of State. How the !@#$ can you even compare the two?

Tell me where I'm wrong, instead of just snarking.

I liked the red helmets, but the uniforms have never been better than they are now, including the helmets.

I wish there was more laughter at him and his lame responses. Just rolling laughter through the crowd of reporters at him being such a dick.

Taking advantage of tax laws is nothing compared to selling influence to foreign nations while working as Secretary of State. One is perhaps illegal, the other is treasonous.

"HoF Watkins" is just kind of a joke. I don't expect him to be a Hall of Famer, but it would be great (of course). Woods might get 60, and have a good year, but regardless, I would rather the Bills had a better Number 2 receiver, and I won't be losing sleep if Woods leaves.

How do you know it was actually Wrex's decision? I don't believe it was, and I still think Wrex is a clown. The pace of the offense seems to be the biggest difference. Finally able to keep a defense on it's heels.

Haha, they are getting better, but they beat Jacoby Biscuit in his 2nd game of his rookie season. The Cards were in a classic let down game (west to east, early game, against an out of conference team with a long week. I think I heard that the Cards have never won in Buffalo?). They have the soft patch of the schedule ahead, so I hope they keep it going.

Ha, I'm not that excited about him. He's alright.

Great job today. I am gaining more respect for Tyrod, and even Woods.

I don't care about his taxes.

​ I think you are on Hillary's payroll, Mister 377. How many posts do you have on the Stadium Wall?

Your dreaming of some sort of Panacea. You can't import a massive amount of Muslims (who have a different set of ideals) and expect to keep liberty intact. It can only happen slowly. There has been conflict between the West and Muslim nations for hundreds of years, it's not reasonable to expect a sudden change. And you do understand how the US government has been going about their business? Knowing that, yet waxing about "our ideals" is a bit much. Hillary has played a direct role in implementing the policies that have created the refugee problem. Angela Merkel invited any and all to come into the EU (without out any of it's citizens having any say in the matter). Saudi Arabia says " we can't accept refugees because they might be a threat, but we will give them money to set up in your countries, and build mosques". Israel does the same. Lot's of different agenda's coming together there. I guess it's up to the citizens of the US and the EU, to accept that terrorism is just a fact of life, and to open our hearts, pocketbooks, and borders, to help the people that these politicians are foisting on us, or we are all racists. I don't know what else to say.

I am 100% for helping humanity, but the best way to help Mexicans, is to improve the conditions in Mexico, and the same for any other country's people. There is no way to save the world through immigration, and disabling the US while trying to save the world, or allowing immigration to be used as a tool to subjugate the US citizens is really !@#$ing foolish.

Yep. I think he frightens them because he isn't beholden to their tacit agreements. Not that Trump doesn't have corruption in his dealings, but I don't think it's so deeply tied directly to politicians, but more in finance, and real estate. I think they are worried he will just go full-out blowhard if they resist his proposals, and wreak havoc on the way they are used to doing business. I can see Trump developing an adversary in Congress, and just running him into the ground, bypassing any of the decorum, and "gentleman's agreements" they all seem to have in place with each other. If he is elected, I expect them to find a way to impeach him, or that he will be assassinated. I have seen the name Loretta Lynch floated as a Supreme Court nominee. Just !@#$ing galling.

It's more a matter of how to proceed. Suddenly introducing millions of Muslims while the US (and really Western Civilization) is in the middle of heightened tensions (like bombings, head removals, random shootings, random stabbings, happening pretty much weekly) seems um..."counter-intuitive" (stupid). I am completely in support of giving aid to Syrian refugees, just not inviting them to become citizens, and having the taxpayers (without any real voice in the matter) pay for it all. A slow introduction of more Muslims (across decades) is worth considering, but a big sudden dump of hundreds of thousands RIGHT NOW, is no good.

I say we only admit Muslim women, and gay Muslims. That will expedite any assimilation. And maybe even out the stats with Europe, where it appears to be around 85% males. They left a lot of women behind.

I'm ruling out Hall of Fame Watkins for this game too

Did what, assimilate? Yes, I think it can be done, but it takes a long time, and the further apart the colliding cultures, the harder it is. Middle-Eastern Muslim culture is a bigger leap than needed for Irish Catholic, no? We are still assimilating Latinos (or maybe they are assimilating Europeans?).

This cuts to the core right there, and you have it backwards. Google "diversity plus proximity equal war"...it's easy to have a liberal, free society when the population is homogenous (see Northern Europe), but if you want to have diversity it forces the hand of authority. Adding a large number of Muslims would be a whole new layer of diversity... very bad idea. America is having more than enough problems assimilating the large number of Asians and Latinos that have arrived in the last 30 years.

Meh, I wrote this season off after week 2. My main concern is that Wrex might get a pass on the crap performance from the team, due to Watkins being out.

I don't think Trump has some kind of grand plan to take away American liberties, or some such nonsense. I think he is simplistic, and thinks "hey, Stop and Search worked great in NYC. Let's do that!", "Too many Mexicans rushing over the border? Build a wall!". I don't consider him a long term threat to liberties. Hillary? When she talks about fighting terrorism by utilizing the internet, I hear "we need to control "hate speech", so we need to have more control of the internet." Of course, she doesn't just mean Islamic Terrorism, but also "white terrorism". More rules, more regulations, more restrictions, and more opportunity for selective enforcement. When I see her and Obama (and the media) refuse to refer to Islamic terrorism, and the type of suppression of information going on now, I think "this is censorship". When I see her support Progressives/SJW's like Lena Dunham, I think "Hillary is going to add more Affirmative Action policies, push for harsher penalties against "rape culture", and generally do whatever she can to handicap the straight, white male. It's time for everyone to get a trophy!" More rules, more regulations, more restrictions, and more opportunity for selective enforcement. And when crime rates climb after cops are either encumbered by restrictions, or "the Ferguson Effect" spreads, and the culture clash that a massive wave of Muslim refugees takes effect, I see more rules, more regulations, more restrictions, and more opportunity for selective enforcement. These are just a few examples. Ride out a few million new Muslims? They reproduce at astonishing rates. No riding it out, man. They are very serious about spreading their religion. And Blacks will be heavily recruited, which will add a new dynamic to race-relations in a couple generations. With more Muslims, I see measures taken to accommodate their views, resulting in more rules, more regulations, more restrictions, and more opportunity for selective enforcement. Take a looksee at some news from Sweden, or the way London has become overrun (the Muslim Mayor of London is trying to implement his own immigration policy, post-Brexit). Take at look a the Rotherham Sex Ring, where the police turned a blind eye to avoid being accused of racism. That kind of Progressive pressure is coming your way. "Ride it out"...hilarious. It's been going on at a varying intensity for hundreds of years!

The difference is that Hillary is heralded by the media as someone who is corrupt, but still has a great record for humanitarian work, and helping the disadvantaged. And I don't believe she has any real interest in those things, they were purely about self-promoting, and political careerism. Trump is openly self-promoting. I think they are both awful, but I think Hillary's policies will pull the country further into a hole that we won't get out of (once you let in millions of Muslims, and give amnesty to millions of illegals, the course of the country is permanently changed), but Trump's will be a 4 year bump, and hopefully some better leadership will come forward for the next term..