...

Makes great optics.

Mmmm....maybe. But you can bet Pegula has sway with Mayor Brown.

I wonder. I wonder if GMTM told the police to book him on something. Not to screw Kane permanently, but to teach a hard lesson. Maybe they think he seeing pictures of himself being cuffed all over the news would have positive outcomes for him over the long term.

Risto isn't finished and Vesey hasn't made a decision. I think both of these things combined are tying his hands.

...and I'm sure a decent lawyer could make that charge go away. I think this ultimately gets distilled down to a bar-incident not unlike one that would have gone unnoticed back in the day. Kane gets a slap on the wrist from the Sabres, and either becomes trade-bait when the time is right or turns his act around in that time where we all look back at this and shake our heads, but are glad he gets a 2-year extension.

Sure, you wouldn't be able to appreciate what your gut is telling you because a month is a month and not a life-time. But you would learn that what happens with people in that position is greatly a matter of choice. I'm talking 95% or greater of the circumstances is due to making the wrong choices. The question will be why are they making those choices. That's where your gut will be right, but your educated mind won't be able to appreciate the reality on the ground, because the answers run counter to what you want to believe.

Of course not. I don't know what your opinions are. However, I do reject your conclusion that Radar is rejecting the opinions of non-police out of hand; I don't see that over the past few pages. I may have missed it, though. I do reject the implication that if one spent a month with impoverished teens in the ghetto one would gain empathy. I guarantee you that would not happen.

I personally spent my formative years in the ghetto, in the sh*ttiest part of the city you can imagine. I know exactly what it's about.

I know it's crazy. It's like hoping a billionaire would come out of no-where and buy the Sabres, become a lynch-pin for a waterfront revival, make an honest attempt to make the team a contender, turn the area into the hockey-hub of the North East, and, oh, let's make this really crazy, buy the Bills and keep them here. He is the nominee, and therefore dictates the platform. What did they say that you don't think would be on the platform? Stuff about helping people regardless of race or sexual orientation? Stuff about big business running things behind the scenes being bad?

Do you think we're all from middle class backgrounds here?

Here's a crazy thought. Whacky, for sure, but, I beg you to follow along for a second or two. What if - and I know it's near insane - what if the "vision" he outlined, and that's how he positioned it, not so much a plan, but what if the vison, or plan, sure, happens over time, with certain things happening before the other. Kind of like a process. So - okay, the real crazy part - so, what if he's saying that he revises the trade agreements and assumes that will start generating some income, and that he opens up the domestic energy production, which will generate more income, and he does some modest infrastructure spending. It's nutty, but these things could put money into the economy, stimulating it a little. Then maybe he gets some tax cuts and he also gets some regulations cut and/or revised. This, in a crazy world, would stimulate the economy more. Just a little more, even. So now you have the economy stimulated a little, perhaps some more revenues being exchanged more frequently. Now, the next part is fantasy land, but what if he gets federal agencies to slash budgets. And what if other programs are revised or cut altogether. And what if these NATO countries and the other countries "we protect", as he puts it, actually do ante up some cash. These things would reduce federal budgets, meaning less tax revenue would be needed. Maybe he gets some IRS reform. That, with regulatory reform and more money floating around the economy, along with businesses spending (now that the taxes and regulations have been revised in our dream world) and the general economy stimulated, all leads to an increase in tax revenues (which has been shown to occur when the economy is good and businesses are doing what businesses do). Okay, so, after all of that - whacky-ness city coming up - and there's some economic stability, maybe even improvement, then they start with civil works projects, like more infrastructure work, building Trump's wall, to help put people to work. This, along with the previously mention business sector opening up (slightly, of course, don't want to get too off the reservation, here), stimulates the economy a little more. Which adds to tax revenues. Which, combined with cuts in agencies and programs, allows us them to focus on those good things like TSA reform, child-care, and other initiatives that are aimed at improving conditions in the inner cities. Is it possible or nutso, screwball, round the bend, mental?

Dude, come on. You're denying what he's done for his state?

What a train wreck that kid's career has been. He had so much potential.

What kind of policy details are you looking for? Like we'll save an average of $2500 annually on health care per family, and that we can keep our doctors? What about the policy that ISIS is the JV team, and we're going to beat them? What exactly was "Hope and Change" referring to? I seem to recall there being no specific detail about what "fundamentally transform America" meant. You mean hate speech like saying about small town Americans "...it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." Which, I guess you wouldn't call hate speech if you agree with what he's saying...but it is hate speech. "The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn’t. But she is a typical white person..." - that seems pretty racist to me, Obama. No? If you think he hasn't shook up the Republican party, then you really need to re-evaluate your sources for news. I can assure you, he's shaken up the party. And, I wonder, if you're watching the convention. Did you listen to his kids? If you're a parent, you know how much those kids reflect the man.

You're reaching pretty far to criticize him with this one. What's next, he spit on the sidewalk once? SMH.

How come we're stuck on this effectively meaningless conversation? How come we're not talking about Rudy Giuliani's speech? He made a great speech, with a lot of red meat for not just the folks at the convention: "When they come to save your life, they don't ask if you are black or white, they just come to save you!" - referring to the police and the domestic issues of moment. "What happened to, 'there's no black America, there's no white America, there is just America'?" - referring to what Obama said during his DNC speech in 2004. What about him revealing Trump's anonymous donations all over NYC?

Agree with his POV or not, I can't believe any one of you who think he's out of touch and a moron are paying any real attention at all to Trump. My guess is instead of studying him, you're relying on the "news" and your favorite pundits to define him for you. I would also say you're letting your political biases filter your impression of him. There is no way someone stumbles and bumbles their way into an empire like Trump has made for himself. No way. For all of the criticism of Terry Pegula's public persona, not just any person can do what Pegula has done for himself. Trump is no different and is a far sharper person than Pegula. With regards to leadership, again, think what you will, but, one of the things Trump does best is lead. Pegula, too. These guys don't get to where they are without being able to lead - it's as simple as that. Lead and make good decisions, either by providence or by skill. For a non-political animal - until recently, of course - Trump seems very aware of political figures and has his history correct. His past comments on situations have been accurate and prescient. I guess what I want to know at this point, maybe, is why do non-right-wing people default to referring to Republican candidates as out of touch morons? That's been the playbook for, like, ever. I get that you bring a my-team-is-better-than-yours sports-like mentality to this process, but this is the real deal, not entertainment. The left-wing candidate is always a fricking genius, and the right-wing candidate can barely wipe their own ass. Doesn't that seem obtuse to you all?

If it's possible for you to put aside the character - because that's what he seems to be to most people who don't like him - what is it about Trump's platform you don't like? You don't need to add details if you don't want to take the time, but just a mention of the platform item would be interesting to me.

While I don't disagree that her "people" should have vetted the speech, I feel bad for her more so because she's the one under the microscope today. I mean, seriously? The nominee's wife over an innocuous speech? Clinton supporters are looking for ANYTHING to take down the Trump campaign so they go after Melania. How very pack-animal like. Who here has ever given a huge speech like that? I'm going to guess they looked at the speeches from Michelle, Laura, Hillary and Nancy, because they won. They probably used speeches from all of them to create a model or template, and then she helped to re-write the composite speech. This focus on her today seems petty to me.

Uhhhhhhh... I have said that to my kids many times over their lives, so far.

I am absolutely living on the wrong planet. What mirror are we holding up, exactly? Who is seeing the Japanese physical characteristics differently here and suggesting that because of that, it must be "racism" that they were bombed? You folks are allowing the racist narrative to live over the span of three thread pages. None of you find the premise intellectually backward and the equivalent to putting it in reverse while trying to go uphill? For what, to maintain some sense of decorum? You may as well argue that a wheel won't work unless it's round. "You know, Bob, a wheel won't work if isn't round." "Yeah, Stu, that's true." "No, no, you do get it. If a wheel had any angle it at all, it wouldn't work." "I get it, Stu, a wheel is round, an infinite plane." "Bob, no, it's a single line connected to itself...a circle. That's what makes the wheel concept work." "Okay, Stu..." Like New York City residents in the 1980's ignoring dead bodies on the streets. Because it's normal. "That's New York for ya." In war there is propaganda. You HAVE to dehumanize the enemy if you intend to win an unconditional victory. The Germans and Italians were subjected to their own dehumanization here and among the other allies as well. Not just the Japanese.

I don't know if your characterization is accurate. Actually, your characterization is wholly inaccurate and inflammatory. Still, I ask again, other than the superficial stat, what makes it racist if certain mosques and individuals were monitered?

Why does that activity warrant being framed as racist, other than the superficial statistics? First off, not all Asians were interned. That's the "race". Secondly, what other statistics are in play: how many interned Japanese were "off-the-boat" versus Italians and Germans? Thirdly, at the time, we were committed to an unconditional victory - war is ugly, and the bullets don't see your skin color. In my opinion, this is irrational revisionism with contemporary political aims. Anyone falling for this is a tool of modern politics.

The same should be told to the race-baiters.