nfreeman

The likelihood of this being Rex's last season in Buffalo has to be at least 85% right now.

Holy mackerel. The wheels are officially coming off.

They've thrown our love away. Now we're just going through the motions.

He was joking you hoser.

The problem IMHO is that this is simply not a realistic possibility. He's not going to go from president of the organization, with significant input on everything, to marketing director. While I agree with TBPhD that he's probably safer than DW and Rex, I think him having that status is a big mistake by TP.

Serious question: if the Bills are 0-4 in 2 weeks, does TP fire Brandon, Whaley and Rex a la firing Darcy and Rolston -- and bring in Jimbo as president to find the next GM and coach a la PLF? I vote yes.

Well, although he said a lot of stuff, it's impossible to know which statements appealed to which people. Do you not agree that it's likely that many were motivated more by the "the system is rigged against you/Washington has forgotten about you?" than by the stuff you're referring to?

Indeed. Politically incorrect, and inadvertently offensive to some -- but not an intentional statement meant to flaunt bigotry.

How do you know this? And do you think it's better to assume that people have honorable motives as opposed to assuming that they are bigots? Also, I'm not sure the reaction he's describing is all that nuanced. I don't think much nuance is involved when someone resents being looked down on and thought of as ignorant/racist/white trash.

Pretty topical piece in the WSJ today: http://www.wsj.com/articles/les-deplorables-1473895470 (Probably paywall-barred, but likely findable on google -- look for "Henninger deplorables").

Good post.

As to the first bolded -- yes, it is. In your example -- would it be bigotry to say "Most Asians are conniving and untrustworthy?" Or "Most Obama supporters are lazy, shiftless [insert slur for African Americans]?" The question answers itself. As to the 2nd bolded -- I don't doubt that you've had negative experiences with Trump supporters. So how about something like "I've seen scary signs of bigotry from the Trump supporters in my town -- such as X, Y and Z?" Or "look at this interview with this racist dirtbag Trump supporter -- can you believe the ignorant things he/she is spewing?" Isn't that more accurate than "Most Trump supporters are white trash/bigots/rednecks?" (FWIW, I spend a fair amount of time in a fairly poor part of upstate NY, and have had numerous conversations with Trump supporters there. I haven't detected any bigotry. But I appreciate that YMMV.) The point, of course, which Claude and Neo have made much more elegantly than I have, is that slurring millions of people with whom you disagree politically is both offensive and intellectually unsound. Finally, in response to your other post, I will note that if person A slurs person B, and you say "I agree with person A" -- then you have slurred person B. I don't see what other conclusion can be drawn about your statement. The sticker says a fair amount about the person who displays it on his/her car -- but it doesn't say anything about the millions of other people who are voting for the same candidate as the car-owner.

This one was indirect, so it wouldn't have shown up on a search. Specifically, poster A called poster B a white supremacist, to which I took issue. PA then stated that a subsequent post by poster B showed that I was wrong to defend poster B from the charge of being a white supremacist.

Well, there are some interesting theories floating around in here. PA was suspended after, despite multiple warnings (both public and private) not to slur those he disagrees with as bigots/racists/white trash/rednecks etc., he called another poster here a white supremacist and, separately, again called Trump supporters bigots and racists. I will also note that when challenged on this, PA reiterated his view that Trump supporters are "truly awful people." That isn't political discussion. It's just name-calling with (ironically) more than a little bigotry in the mix. As always, I'm happy to discuss.

This is a good summary of why many conservatives will hold their noses and vote for Trump: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439952/united-states-obama-foreign-policy-military-deterrence-vladimir-putin

I think Stephens is excellent. Today's column summarizes quite well the reasons many conservatives are conflicted about Trump.

I just thought it was "if they knew then what they knew now..." -- which is likely true but IMHO not particularly surprising.

Not sure Dreger really said anything compelling there. Who would trade for someone certain to get arrested and accused of sexual assault?

You need to tone it down. It's important for the conversation here to be respectful -- not filled with sarcasm, insults and caustic remarks. The bolded statements are not OK.

FIFY.

I agree with the bolded (although probably not with your choice of candidate!).

I think in order for this to be convincing, you need some specific quotes. You also need to lay off the personal accusations. Everyone is bringing his/her own personal views to this thread -- that's why they're here.

OK -- time to take it down a notch.

I missed on almost all of "em.

That was a very disappointing performance by TT. At one point in the first half, McCoy had gotten the ball on something like 12 out of 15 plays. From my vantage point at the stadium, Sammy was in single coverage multiple times and didn't get a look. IMHO he should get the ball every single GD time he's in single coverage. At least the D looked well improved.