LA Grant

Hmm. Well, Tyrod always talked about his Christian faith, maybe not as much as Peterman, but he was always open about it, and it didn't seem to matter. I don't think‚ well, I hope McDermott isn't one to let something like this be a real factor. If anything, they may see their locker room as capable of handling Rosen's strong personality. The way the Bills managed the player protests — one of the more graceful teams in the approach — indicates to me that McDermott isn't intolerant of differing beliefs. As a fan, I love that Rosen isn't like your standard robot QB. It's refreshing as hell. If Rosen had problems like Manziel, that's one thing. But if they pass on Rosen for Allen because of this factor, that's a failure... the younger generation are going to be increasingly more like guys like Rosen, more willing to speak their mind. Coaches need to be adaptive, and to bring those guys into the fold.

I hope you're right! Rosen is accurate and can read defenses. That's what wins in the NFL, not necessarily height & arm cannons. I believe Rosen is the most likely to be Peyton 2.0. The only knock on Rosen is he's "too smart" which is such a breathtakingly stupid football thing. Thankfully, the Pegula Bills is kind of the perfect landing spot for a guy like that. Maybe it wouldn't have been with Marrone or Rex, but with the "love" culture McDermott is building, Rosen would be the ideal QB — on & off the field.

Yeah I think the Niners make a lot of sense... will they have room for him if they sign Sherman though? I could see this, but the Browns would need to really pony up the dough. Sammy believes he should be a star, and Cleveland hasn't been known for star players. If the Jets lose out on Kirk Cousins, I think this is definitely possible... they are the exact kind of team that overpays in a reactive way like this.

I told Dukakis not to get in that tank but nooooo...

OK so I will meet you halfway here & agree on the bolded. Trump ran a far better campaign and connected with voters in a deeper way than Hillary did or could've on her best day. People are tired of the establishment, almost always in America, but increasingly so when class divisions are more severely pronounced, like they are now. Bush runs on anti-establishment and wins. Obama runs on anti-establishment against McCain and wins. It's also how he beat Hillary in the 08 primaries. Hillary couldn't have been a more "establishment" if she tried, and Trump not only had no experience in politics, but he also played the game entirely differently. The primaries were entertaining like a reality show, because Trump knew how to be a persona far better than Jeb, Rubio, Cruz, whoever. He'd been doing it far longer and better. It was amusing to see him cut them down. Trump probably didn't need Russia, because Hillary being the most qualified candidate ever doesn't matter. Voters are not making decisions in the way a company hires an employee. They vote based on feeling. The story with Bush over Gore then Kerry was the "he seems like a guy I could have a beer with" mentality, for just one example. Abortion rights are always a key issue to get voters out because it's a highly emotional issue. It gets people out of the house and makes them prioritize going to the polls. On the other hand, Hillary was a robot, with the only appeal being "more of the same" and "first woman president." (Although, to be fair, she did win the popular vote, and it is weird that the last two Republican presidents won without it). In any case, it wasn't nearly enough. Like it or not, none of that matters now. Whether Trump needed to cheat is irrelevant at this point. The Patriots probably didn't need to cheat to win Super Bowls but they did anyway. Brady probably didn't need deflated balls to beat the Colts but it didn't matter to Ted Wells. Trump probably didn't need Russia but it won't matter to Bob Mueller. Republicans spent years investigating Benghazi, and ultimately came away with nothing to show for it. Perhaps nothing will come of the Russia investigation, as well. Unlike the Benghazi episode, though, this crime isn't merely an investigation from the House Committee, far more likely to be motivated by partisanship than a Special Counsel comprised of old-school Republicans. Regardless of left/right/who you voted for, at some point, transgressions have to matter. What Trump is accused of is a crime without precedent in the U.S.; breaking into the DNC or getting a blowjob from an intern seem like run-of-the-mill stories in comparison to the weight of what potentially happened.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-lawyers-seek-deal-with-mueller-to-speed-end-of-russia-probe-1520625944 Kinda strange for Trump to seek a deal to end Mueller's investigation early if the whole probe is a charade. ?Usually, not always, but usually defendants look to settle when they don't want to face trial because they're guilty and seek lenience. That's a strange strategy, since there's not a shred of evidence. Which makes it even weirder for Mueller to not agree to it, since he's secretly working on behalf of Team Trump to clear his name. ? As Tasker might say "why is this coming out now?" Probably just more of the charade, giving false confidence to the real criminals... like whoever actually killed Nicole Brown & Ron Goldman. I have it on good authority they're in on this, too. But the most perplexing thing is how all of the WSJ commenters seem to be insisting on the same alt-narrative as Rhino. I'm guessing they all did their own first hand on the ground research, which makes you wonder why the WSJ isn't just employing the commenters to write for them in the first place. ?But maybe the WSJ are part of the MSM plot, and this is propaganda. Then you have to wonder, why even allow commenters? How can the MSM cabal be so organized yet so inept to just let commenters expose their dastardly plot right there below the copy? What could be going on here? ???

Definitely a realistic possibility. If that does happen, and Jimmy keeps looking as real as he did toward the end of last season, and Sammy stays healthy, the NFC West will be between SF and LA for the division. Arizona is in a total rebuild. Seahawks will be competitive but they're also doing so much retooling on defense that they'll almost certainly take another step backwards. I don't disagree but the other thing is that a receiver with his "pedigree" almost never hits the open market. There are too many WR-thirsty teams who will pay, including several teams with good QBs. That's why I think the Cowboys are going to be among the front runners. Dak may not be "the guy" longterm, he took a big step back this year, but they need somebody at WR and it's not a sure thing that Dez Bryant comes back at all; even if he does, he's been limited the last two years or so. A fat contract for a potential superstar WR seems like a Jerry Jones kind of gamble to stay in the race with Philly for the division next year.

I don't think the Rams need him, certainly not at what he's going to cost. He was basically behind Kupp and Woods last season in targets, IIRC. Dolphins would be possible, but I'd rather not have to deal with any kind of "Sammy's Revenge" storyline, so let's hope not. Both need WR help, that's for sure... if he goes to SF, that's a potent offense if Goodwin & Sammy can stay healthy (a big "if"). I would bet against the Bears just because Trubisky is such a question mark and I'm sure Watkins is looking for a steadier QB situation (though that's probably second to $$$).

And what kind of deal will he get? Someone is going to overpay for his potential. My bet is the Cowboys give him the stupid contract he's looking for. Dez hasn't been "Dez" for a couple seasons and they don't have much WR talent behind him either. Sammy seems like a natural fit for Jerry World. I could also see the Chargers, Packers, Falcons, or Saints making bids for him.

Where can I read your work? I haven't read all 22,000 of your posts but I've probably read.... well, a lot of them. If you have published work, I'd be happy to read, particularly the ones with interviews. The posts of yours here that I have read didn't include first-hand sources or interviews. Most of them have been links to opinion pieces. In fact, your post that I'm responding to right now includes a link to an opinion piece from the Washington Times. It's right there at the top. Right. So this is McCarthy saying the same thing you were a moment ago — that what matters is the people Steele talked to, and the credibility of those sources. But I've yet to see anything that shows his sources to be anything but credible. I've seen you calling it gossip and doubting his methods and sources and doubting those who have said they're credible, I've seen that. But where is the proof his sources are not credible? Seriously. I'm also wondering what credible looks like to you. What would that be? The FBI releasing the names & interviews of Steele's sources so they can be vetted by people online? Really. Not one shred of evidence for collusion between Trump and Russia? Even with the indictments already claiming "unwitting" participation from his team with Russia, with the investigation still ongoing in multiple directions? You're the legal expert here so surely you've heard of a thing called "circumstantial evidence." Not one shred, though. ? Okay. Is it possible the apparatus attempting a cover-up and pushing partisan division to deflect from the real story... is it possible... that might be the ones pushing the "don't believe the investigation, my client is innocent"? Or no? Not possible?

I think the Browns should take Barkley at 1 and do exactly what you say. Take the can't-miss guy and then even if you pick the 3rd best QB at 4, you're still getting a potentially franchise guy. If it turns out to be the 2004 class, then they get Big Ben instead of Rivers or Eli. But because Browns logic, I suspect what they will do is take Darnold at 1, make sure they get the guy they want, and are thinking if Barkley somehow makes it to 4 (which he won't), they can take him there, and if not, they'd potentially trade down, possibly with the Bills. The other reason I think the Browns would hesitate to take a RB at 1 and miss out on their preferred QB is they are still feeling burnt from taking Trent Richardson so high, even though that was a different regime. Trading for Tyrod just means the Browns don't have to start Darnold right away. Whichever QB the Browns take will be guaranteed to be the worst one in any case, because Browns.

You are a kook. It's about the article and the author is exactly what I'm saying. Mayer has a world-class reputation as an investigative journalist and this article is in her area of expertise. The idea that I'm a fascist when you're working overtime to maintain a narrative that a President who likely committed treason is actually innocent is preposterous. He's literally already talked in public about the possibility of being "president for life" and one of his options if indicted by Mueller may be to bomb North Korea, say there's no room for elections due to the circumstances, and suspend elections or some other nightmare scenario, but in that case, you'd say that would be a win. Fascist dictatorship is the slippery slope Trump could lead us down, and you're helping him. Everything you're chirping is "no, down is up! no! look! i've proved it! down is up!" which you're sadly unable to see because your head is so far up your ass. It's why you only post from loony outlets who have not earned any trust whatsoever, yet you trust them implicitly. Your bias is showing, you fool. Who, where, and how? This sounds like a description of what the Trump campaign would be guilty of doing, no? Er, no... lol. It's not because it's in "The New Yorker" versus "The Federalist." It's because one has demonstrated journalistic ethics, time and again, whereas the other has not. It's this exact reason that I'm more inclined to believe Jane Mayer, proven expert, than Deranged Rhino, guy on message board who says he's an expert. You've spent a lot of time researching, I'll certainly give you that. My mind isn't closed to your theories, they just don't appear to have validity. I don't think we have the full story yet, but the pieces we have are damning. Your version is that the pieces go in a different order to support a different conclusion. It reeks of bias to me, and honestly it looks more like it's about you being unable to see reality because of your ego. I'm sure you will flip that around and say that I'm doing the same thing, but I haven't been doubling down on an alternate narrative for the last year, so I'm less invested in the story "needing" to be a certain way. You've closed your mind, it appears. Didn't FISA approve the warrant based on the credibility of Steele's sources? The article also provides multiple specific examples of when Steele & Orbis' network lead to actionable evidence. As for the dossier being unconfirmed, we'll have to wait to find out at the conclusion of the Mueller investigation. Okay. How is intelligence gathered? Is it possible your assumption is wrong? Or no? Totally impossible? He was hired to investigate Trump's links to Russia, and wasn't first hired by the Clinton law firm. They didn't know what they would find. They found what they found. I looked through this timeline. This is what you said is more credible. https://view.publitas.com/galacticredpill/!@#$ery-timeline/page/1 It's full of wacky assumptions, including that Mueller is on Team Trump, although there's no way to shake you from that belief until it all shakes out. I can see that. Maybe you could instead tell me why is this more credible than Jane Mayer's report? From the article: Singer has historically been a big spender for conservative causes & Republican candidates.

Me too. I think it's "conditional" in the sense that its based on whether or not the Bills want to trade up at 4.

I think it's something like this. If the Bills were going to do a trade up before the draft, it would've been here with Tyrod. 21 & 22 + Tyrod doesn't take you to 1st overall, but it does take you to 4, I'd think. My guess is they have had lots of conversations that are like "If one of these guys is available at your pick and you're not taking him, this is what we could offer." They probably know the Browns are going Darnold at 1, but the Browns are undecided if they will keep 4 or move down depending on what happens at 2 or 3. If the first 3 picks are QBs, then Browns probably stay at 4 to take Barkley. But if Barkley is gone, I don't know there's another "can't miss" player at 4 that wouldn't be better served by trading down for additional picks.

I would be surprised to see the Giants trade down from 2. They're going to take a QB or Barkley, I think. They're not going to be picking that high again anytime soon and would be foolish to not reap the benefits of having 50% of their offense go to IR last season.

Most likely trade partners — Colts at 3 Browns at 4 Bucs at 7 If Browns go Darnold at 1, and Barkley is off the board by 4, I think they would be willing to trade down to 21 & 22. If Rosen is there, I think we make the move. If not, I think we trade with Bucs at 7 for Jackson or Mayfield.

The Browns should be pretty well stocked for next season and beyond if they don't blow their QB pick again. As much as I'm hoping the Tyrod deal opens a backdoor that if Rosen is there at 4, they'll trade with us for 21 & 22 & another pick, I'm thinking the Browns are more likely to go Barkley at 1 and best QB available at 4. AFC North is a weak division and it would be nice to see the Browns shake it up. I'll be rooting for Tyrod and Cleveland to make it happen, it's better for the NFL in general.

Glad you care about poverty. (Genuinely!) I was getting the impression that you didn't care about anything at all. Homelessness & poverty is a horrible problem, not just in California, but throughout the U.S. The amount of homelessness in Los Angeles & San Francisco is criminal, we agree on that at least. But it's reallllllllllly short-sighted to blame it on "Dem policies" or the "left"; they're complicit but it's farcical to place the blame entirely or even mostly at their feet. This is one of the strange contradictions of the Republicans/right. It's a party full of guys who want to abolish social services, then point to the decimation of the lower classes & say "see? government doesn't work. keep voting for us." Real estate developers will keep building luxury condos so ex-Vine stars have an extra place to keep their hoverboards and push out lower-class residents as long as they keep having the ability to do so. This is why government is necessary and why capitalism needs regulations and checks & balances. It's silly to expect money to be moral. I think Universal Basic Income could really help; it streamlines social services and encourages investment and innovation. I've seen budget proposals where UBI could be achieved with only a moderate hike in taxes on the top 1%. Instead, Republicans keep offering that group tax cuts, despite the evidence that "trickle down" doesn't work. ... Moving on. Hi Rhino! Thanks for playing. I'm not going to respond to everything all at once, so I'll just address what I have time for now. Okay well, you didn't test the merits of your Federalist thing but let's just take you at your word. First of all, I'd like to point out that calling Mayer's work propaganda is preposterous. This isn't some Huffington Post or Breitbart blog post. You're smearing the work of the best investigative journalists we currently have and, even if we say you're on the money with everything you say after, calling it "piss poor" "puff piece" and "propaganda" (P.P.P.?) is a joke. https://www.newyorker.com/contributors/jane-mayer You feel comfortable calling her work trash, and the work of Bob Mueller, Chris Steele — not to mention the entire intelligence community — you feel entirely comfortable saying they're all hacks & liars. (Meanwhile you won't defend the Federalist, a blog started by a plagiarist fired by WaPo, seemingly only trusting the most dubious of sources). This is a reflection on you more than them, though, and betrays a naivety about how the world works. It's hard to imagine you're a professional or established in your field IRL, bc if you were, you'd understand how ignorant and insulting it is to simply outright dismiss work from people with expertise. There is a general cultural distrust of "experts" among the right, labeling them as "elites." Let's say you are an expert in your field IRL, at work. Instead of people listening to you in meetings, they go "yeahhh sure, egghead, but here's what I think." This is frustrating. Sometimes you should want elite. Anybody can throw a football but not everyone can be an elite QB, right? I wanted to address this aspect first because, even if you turn out to have been right all along, it has the appearance of "pfft, I could throw a better ball than that clown." Mayer's report covers exactly what you're talking about, multiple times. His network & sources have wide respect among the intelligence community. Sources that have multiple other sources saying they are entirely credible. The same sources have been proven to be credible time and again over his career. Again, this is all in the report that I'm not sure you were able to get through because your mind is pretty made up on this. "Gossip" is "intelligence." That's what it has to be. Steele, or any intelligence agent, gathering information from sources is not the same as a journalist doing the same job. You get that, right? One is more thoroughly vetted (well maybe not by the Federalist or American Thinker but ethical journalists), and seeks to connect the dots. The other is "here is a series of dots, and a lot of smoke. There may be a fire below." The idea that he's being fed information assumes that Steele is an idiot who wouldn't know the difference, that Mueller wouldn't know the difference, that FISA wouldn't know the difference. You're saying we should be taking your word for it that the entire intelligence community is wrong about the sources. Or that without something in writing from Putin that says "give X to Y so they do Z" which is an absurd expectation. Okay I'll come back to the rest of your post later. Tyrod was just traded. Holy f***ng sh*t!!

Glad the f***er is out of the division, at least.

You're Boyst.

Wow. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence. As for taking action... Keep the faith.

Hahaha "puff piece." I think you guys have convinced yourselves you're Woodward & Bernstein toiling on a Buffalo Bills message board so long you wouldn't know real journalism if it bit you in the face. The discussion in the other threads are exactly as stupid as the posts have been in this thread. "Fake news! Debunked!" Except of course without any proof of any of it being "debunked." If you're so sure that this is all fake and Trump didn't commit treason, go on record & vote no. We'll see how it all shakes out soon enough. Words and ideas to mature adults (usually conservative politically) are very important. Libs love to toss both around like they mean nothing. This post deserves to be in the hall of fame of self-owns. The irony here is amazing.

By the way, none of that goes into Bob Mercer, the crazy extreme right-winger who wants to essentially abolish all government in favor of corporations. Mercer is the guy who bankrolls Steve Bannon/Breitbart and staffed much of the Trump campaign. Mayer covered this angle a few months back here: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/27/the-reclusive-hedge-fund-tycoon-behind-the-trump-presidency Here's a quicker summary from an interview she did later: https://www.democracynow.org/2017/3/23/jane_mayer_on_robert_mercer_the https://www.npr.org/2017/03/22/521083950/inside-the-wealthy-family-that-has-been-funding-steve-bannon-s-plan-for-years All of the totally coincidental times Mercer happened to hang out around Russian oligarchs. http://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/national-govt--politics/yachts-trump-financial-backer-russian-oligarch-seen-close-together/gI074W3JLqvEYrQ0hm9zlN/ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/08/robert-mercer-offshore-dark-money-hillary-clinton-paradise-papers

This is getting buried in the various Russian threads and warrants its own topic, particularly since the other threads are all about the narrative that none of this is true, or it's all a feint. I suppose it's fair to call both narratives "conspiracy theories" but they can't both be right. Either Trump was a cooperative Russian patsy, or it's all a big Hillary/Soros/Globalist plot to rig the election against Trump and then falsely investigate him to actually investigate the globalists. Or something like that. You can decide which is more plausible. Jane Mayer's report in the New Yorker is fantastic, regardless, and wouldn't be at all surprising if she won a Pulitzer for it. Mayer's been doing great investigative work her entire career, including previously winning a Polk for her article on the NSA official prosecuted by Obama administration for whistleblowing, which helped lead to charges being dropped. This is a must read (or listen) about the full story behind the British spy who set most of the Trump/Russia investigation into motion. It's long but thorough, well-written, and easier to stomach than any of the 100 page threads where poor Rhino is descending into madness. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/12/christopher-steele-the-man-behind-the-trump-dossier Virtually every line in the piece could be its own individual discussion. There is A LOT in there, and my pulls below are by no means comprehensive — read the full thing, seriously. It's not even really about left/right as much as it is about oil, oligarchy, and indirect attacks aimed to destabilize. Trump was just the perfect fool to play. Putin was pissed about sanctions after the Ukraine episode 4 years ago and vowed revenge. With Brexit and Trump, can't say Putin didn't pull it off. Trump won't do anything against them, and so the US won't do anything against them until he's gone. Round one of Cold War II absolutely goes to Russia, thanks in part to the efforts of the fools who keep falling for it. ^ Russian aid given to right-wing nationalists to inflame fear and disrupt a Western election... that could never happen here, tho: https://www.npr.org/2018/03/01/590076949/depth-of-russian-politicians-cultivation-of-nra-ties-revealed There may be proof the Kremlin was directly involved in Tillerson pick. The article goes into a lot of detail on Steele's reputation and credibility, as well as of what we can know about his sources: Mueller investigating at least one death as a result of the dossier. Earlier in the article, there are stories of Putin critics, in and out of intelligence, being poisoned or disappearing. hocking, I know. Probably lots of "u up?" texts from Putin with the ? emoji. You have to wonder which is more likely — Hillary orchestrating a triple-double-reversal spy game, or Dems trying to "go high" and lose as a result? See, it's always the same weak sh*t from the Democrats, from gerrymandering to everything above. Hindsight is 20/20 but there's no room for playing nice in a fight against nihilists anymore. We saw this play out in real-time but always worth pointing out — f*** Mitch McConnell, turtle-looking motherf***er. And of course Kerry would p***y out like this. Steele and Orbis (his private intelligence company) had habitually reported national security risks when they came across relevant information, not just to the U.S. but to European countries, as well. Furthermore, the dossier was never entirely funded by the Clinton campaign's law firm, as it was initially funded by a Republican against Trump. No f***ing sh*t. The full article provides a detailed timeline that makes the Republican/Trump theory that this was all a coordinated hit on Trump at the behest of Hillary/Obama an even bigger stretch than Tasker's waistband. Below precedes the story of Russia's meddling with the FIFA Cup results to help them win before they started messing with elections. Great line. Even better. ????? The right counter-narrative propaganda is currently going on about FISA, hoping that might be enough to cast doubt on the Dossier and throw it all out. The Post has a clear analysis of why that argument simply doesn't hold enough water. The first line sums it up simply but there's obviously more detail in the full article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/02/07/the-fatal-flaw-of-the-nunes-memo-conspiracy-theories-in-one-exchange/?utm_term=.a8c5e1d1b9a1 ALSO, please be sure to go on record & say whether or not you think Republican President Donald Trump is guilty of treason. Here's the definition.

You're right, I should have used the search. Thank you though. Guess it's not too shocking how the conversation played out — Gary wants to talk about the content, Rhino shouts old news and also fake news, Gary says there's new info in there, Rhino shares tweet from Fox News host, Gary gives up, Boyst contributes a bigoted slur, and then on to the next thing. Well I can see why DC Tom would think that sufficed as intellectual discourse, so there's no need to repeat it. I will, however, share a few passages I found interesting for anyone who hasn't read the full piece. It's worth reading in full though and wouldn't be shocked to see it win a Pulitzer, assuming Rhino doesn't. Really great work once again from Jane Mayer. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/12/christopher-steele-the-man-behind-the-trump-dossier There may be proof the Kremlin was directly involved in Tillerson pick, as had been guessed before. On credibility and sources: Of course, the right's response has been "see? see? the investigators were colluding with the Russians, because they were talking to all these sources in Russia!" hahah Mueller investigating Simpson's claim from his testimony. Probably lots of "u up?" texts from Putin with the ? emoji. Which is more likely — Hillary orchestrating a triple-double-reversal spy game, or Dems trying to "go high" and lose as a result? It's always the same weak sh*t from the Democrats, from gerrymandering to everything above. There's no room for playing nice in a fight against nihilists anymore. We saw this play out in real-time but always worth pointing out — f*** Mitch McConnell, turtle-looking motherf***er. Ugh of course Kerry would p***y out like this. No f***ing sh*t. The full article provides the timeline which makes the theory that this was all a hit on Trump at the behest of Hillary/Obama a bigger stretch than Tasker's waistband, but here's a fun new tidbit. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/12/christopher-steele-the-man-behind-the-trump-dossier Great line. Even better. ?????