Avisan

Bruh. Trump was claiming that there are elective "executions" (his words) of viable babies occurring. It is an absolutely bogus claim. All of the nuance in our discussion thus far has been regarding why even the milder claims being made about abortion are inaccurate. Also worth noting that Kamala expressing a desire to return to the Roe vs. Wade status quo does technically answer the question, even if comes across as vague and unspecific. You can dislike the answer and find it lacking, but IS an answer. Trump was refusing to answer a yes/no question not about support for a specific stance, but rather whether or not he would veto a hyppthetical bill banning abortion that Trump's running mate had already said Trump would sign.

Yeah-- so a couple of important notes here. First is that "abortions" encompasses things like miscarriages (also known as "spontaneous abortions") and terminations performed to protect the life of the mother. A pre-viability fetus/unviable baby that exits the womb receiving palliative care instead of life-sustaining measures just means that the parent opted not to prolong the life of a child that was not going to survive. If comfort care was not administered, it would indicate that it was unnecessary to provide additional care based on the condition of the (again, unviable) child. Repeals of laws forcing life-saving measures in these situations is to reduce the levels of trauma to parents that find themselves in these situations and to reduce the expenditure of medical resources on patients who are guaranteed not to survive. I don't know it? You are fully ignoring this portion of my post: "Trump was also making unnuanced claims involving "executions" of full-term babies, which is what prompted the fact-check." Conflating false assertions of post-birth abortions with what is occurring in Minnesota is absolutely acceptable to fact-check.

Yeah, I've been looking into this-- there is nothing, even on extremely right-leaning or otherwise pro-life spaces, that indicates that any of these cases are elective abortions of viable fetuses/babies, which is what Trump's claims were about. Trump was also making unnuanced claims involving "executions" of full-term babies, which is what prompted the fact-check.

Were those elective abortions or medical abortions due to a combination of risk to the mother and conditions incompatible with life for the baby? All of the alleged cases I have seen so far outside of Minnesota have involved parents making decisions about how long to sustain the life of a doomed and suffering (wanted) infant. Harris did not make strong inaccurate claims outside of her opponent about matters of fact. You could reasonably say that she was misleading on how she answered questions about herself or attacks on Trump's positions, but again, moderators were not fact-checking attacks against opponents.

To answer your question: Neither candidate was fact-checked with respect to their attacks on one another as candidates. Trump was fact-checked with respect to objective realities involving late-term pregnancy terminations or palliative care for non-viable infants, incendiary claims about (legal) migrants eating family pets, whether or not he won the 2020 election, and whether or not he recently made comments about Harris' racial background. Asserting something incorrect about your opponent is different from asserting incorrect things about reality outside of your opponent. Moderators were fact-checking the latter, but not the former. One of the candidates has a more complicated relationship with truth than the other, and was thus fact-checked more.

That's because the people with the badges and guns have total control over how things go for Hill in that situation, regardless of how he behaves. A person interacting with police can be totally compliant and still get roughed up, or a lippy smart-ass and walk away unscathed. The only thing that your behavior changes is potentially the likelihood of police abuse of power and the number of people who think you deserved it if the video of your interaction is released. "Be respectful to police officers or they might find an excuse to ruin your day or physically harm you" is good practical advice, but is certainly interesting to hold as a positive value system.

@Alphadawg7I thought I noticed Dawson Knox get abused as a blocker on the line on a couple of plays, as in complete whiffs. We're you looking at that at all in your TE watch-through?

You missed two-thirds of the conversation there, chief. Pretty much every team has poor stretches and loses to teams that they shouldn't. Claiming that it's part of the McDermott playbook implies that the Bills are a particularly egregious offender and that it's due to his head coaching. If you would like to supply statistical evidence that the Bills are notable on this front and/or posit an alternative explanation for the phenomenon besides McDermott being too conservative, have at it. Or you can leave it at "Neener neener the Bills hit a rough patch last season" but there really isn't anything to discuss there.

Very obvious final outcome from the still frame, of course. Allen is a ridiculous player.

Did the Bills lose to the Jets, Broncos, Jags, or Patriots due to conservative head coaching decisions?

??????? "Josh did his job to the level of expectation commensurate with his compensation and his importance to the team far more often than Diggs did in the back half of the season." Explain to me how this is not a response to a comparison pertaining to Diggs' and Allen's respective playoff performances, particularly as the conversation pertains to last season and how folks feel about Diggs/Allen in the aftermath.

The ball got there. His job is to catch it. He didn't. Josh did his job to the level of expectation commensurate with his compensation and his importance to the team far more often than Diggs did in the back half of the season. Diggs dropped the ball at a crucial moment instead of stepping up the plate, then finished forcing his way off the team. So yeah, of course the conversation is different if he catches that ball. But he didn't. That matters.

Is there any evidence, statistically, that supports the idea that McDermott has a notably conservative approach, or that the Bills let teams hang around more than other teams with comparable records each season?

Do you feel that this is consistent with the Bills having the best point differential in the league over the last several seasons?

Weird. Doesn't Brian know that Ed Oliver is actually the one who caused the sack here?

Are extrajudicial ass-kickings meted out by armed agents of the state at their own personal discretion an element of a just and equal society in your view, then?

Fear induces a fight-or-flight response, which demonstrably and provably does not improve people's abilities to make safe, reasoned decisions for the benefit of others. It does the opposite. It is... interesting to hear the perspective that we need to fear armed agents of the state for our own good.

Cops meting out extrajudicial punishments is completely antithetical to the ideals of a free and equal society. We have a legal process and protections under the law for a reason, and to be so cavalier about a clear violation of those principles because the person in question is an unpleasant human being is really concerning and disheartening.

This is the bar? That there boy should just be sooo grateful that an armed agent of the state didn't end his life for the heinous sin of... being insufficiently respectful?

Having 300 pound folks pushed directly into your legs tends to induce clumsiness, yes.

But he didn't. You recognize that him not catching that ball matters, right?

These folks are legit so committed to their priors that they cannot give Von Miller credit for a bull rush rep that he clearly and undeniably dominated.

Bruh. He "trips up" over the legs of the dudes getting bull-rushed into him, one of whom was Von's guy. I presume you have eyes, so just... admit that Von played a significant role in that sack? And it wasn't "Ed and Groot" winning their reps? Why does it feel like a solid chunk of this board of "fans" short-circuits when the Bills and their players do well instead of being happy?

34 points. 24 points in the second half despite apparently not adjusting or making them pay for their efforts to stop the run. Get. A. Grip.

No, no they don't. The Bills were in scoring position already when the Allen fumble occurred, and literally scored a 4-yard touchdown when the facemask occurred. The Bills were averaging 8.7 yards per play before the fumble, and 8.6 yards per play before the facemask penalty. They were moving the ball down the field very effectively, at more than double your alleged yards per play. Maybe you were simply, idk, wrong? And should just admit to that because it isn't a big deal to be wrong?