What Bills fans are saying

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/193148-rams-sign-ex-bill-cb-nrc/

TC
Wade will make the most of his skills. He’s a good player. Wish we’d kept him, but I understand that the coach doesn’t like guys that are shorter than he.

Jerky Beef
Are they called the West Coast Bills now?

billsfan89
Not a big fan of the team letting him go, at worst he would be great depth at dime back. I know that he is short for his position but a lot of advanced metrics seem to have graded him out above average for his position. Considering that he was under a very reasonable contract and his performance wasn’t at all bad I thought it was a very foolish move to let him go esp considering the general lack of depth the team has at that position.

LeGOATski
Dann. Fun playre to watch. Great in the slot.

Over 28 years of fanhood
Cool. Guaranteed highlight play once or twice a season. Scrappy lil fella

Mister Defense
I always thought he played his heart out and did so with talent. He also seemed like a good leader

Teeflebees
Hope he does well out there. Always liked the kid.

BuffaloBillsMagic1
Guy looked good to me. Thought we should have kept him.

YoloinOhio
We don’t play them for a few years and NFC, always liked Woods and NRC so I’ll root for them

Lawrence O’Donnell makes a plausible case as he gives reason’s why there is a possibility that Putin orchestrated the Syrian and Trump attacks.

I have to say, I don’t buy this one for a minute.

Russia has a lot of national face invested in being a supporter of Syria, which it openly defines as part of its own sphere of national interest.

I don’t think they sacrifice that to cover up what to them is a completely irrelevant, “no consequences either way” internal american election scandal.

.

Blue and Gold wrote:

pefect name for his role: Nickel back. adds credence to Joyner to FS, I;ve watched this kid a little, a few years back, good nickel, can blitz and get there, good cover…not going to be an all-pro, but a role player than can play the slot, rush from there..and be a decent player. I’d see him flash in Buffalo, I watched quite a bit when Mario Williams was there and this kid would be noticeable in plays.

This is a plus, I guess and Joyner at FS is a plus, too, not a fan of Mo as FS

Okay I gave it a shot.

I would draft it in the 5th round if there were no CBs there.

I’m sorry, WV, you mean well, and I always enjoy it when you’re active a lot, and I always learn from your posts. I’m just a “tough crowd” on this for some reason.

RT is NOT monolithic. There’s good RT and bad RT. You would know that if you actually watched more of it.

Why should I invest myself in it at all? I like my sources of info, which are very wide. In other words, is there any particular reason I should care? Especially since my first instinct would be to verify anything they say, which is a lot of work and time. So I don’t see the point in bothering. I keep saying there’s plenty out there so who needs em.

I do know that russian takes on the conflicts in syria influenced some things I did watch, and I found it to be worse than useless…it was actually aggressively bad.

We may just have to not see eye to eye on this. Or, I could have you poisoned. That would be very russian I think.

Are all russians, like you, dedicated Seattle fans?

Just curious. I don’t judge.

..

wv wrote:

You didnt watch
it.

w
v

You didn;t make a case for it. It;s the bloody Putin Russians. I think it’s naive to pretend that outside their own borders they turn into these apostles of free thinking and genuine news.

There are all kinds of good analysts out there, for example, who have shown how much the BBC is agenda-driven. Why all of a sudden is Russian state-sponsored news escaping the same criticism we bring to the BBC?

And not only is it of necessity tainted, it’s not necessary to even go there. There’s nothing they could ever provide that wouldn’t be provided better by others who don’t have a state-sponsored taint.

We also wouldn’t recommend Radio America to people. Well there’s a reason for that.

The Russians don’t stop being who they are anymore than the american agenda stops being the american agenda on Radio America.

.

wv wrote:

link:http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/235141/rams-sign-standout-slot-cornerback-nickell-robey-coleman

Rams sign slot CB Robey-Coleman

from Rams sign standout slot cornerback Nickell Robey-Coleman

Robey-Coleman joined the Bills in 2013 as an undrafted free agent out of USC, teaming with the Rams’ newest receiver, Robert Woods, at both stops. Robey-Coleman hasn’t missed a game to injury in his four-year career and has started 15 times, with 29 passes defended, five sacks and three interceptions. Two of those interceptions came against the Rams at Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum this past season, one of which was returned for a touchdown.

His presence could prompt Lamarcus Joyner to make a transition to free safety full time this season. Joyner, who has excelled as a slot corner over the last two years, was seen as a candidate to play free safety in 3-4 sets and move back to his role as a slot corner in nickel packages. But the latter might not be the case any longer.

Robey-Coleman allowed a passer rating of 74.86 in the slot last year, which ranked second among slot corners, according to Pro Football Focus.

waterfield wrote:

More “studies”.

“More shallow dismissive quotation marks in lieu of an actual argument.”

Don’t mind me. Just bein a rat.

But you DON’T have an argument. Just some overgeneralized shallow dismissal of studies you don’t like (and so don’t read) because they counter your assumptions, a handful of conversations, and then this blissfully sheltered conviction that what YOU see is more than just what YOU see.

I read studies-of course I do-part of that has been my profession-but I know for every study on a subject there is an equally valid one out there. Its like competing expert witnesses in a trial.

I have to say, W, that to me that’s a generalization, and, an empty one. It is simply not true that for “every” legitmate study out there there’s an opposite one. Want an example? Show me studies that claim the opposite of the several ones posted here.

That’s the entire problem with the “I rely on what I see” approach. That’s just setting yourself up to not change your mind or not see certain facts. It also means ignoring what OTHERS see. Like people in this thread, ie, some people you know, who have directly seen what you say you haven’t. Do you listen to that with equal energy you expect us to use listening to you?

Always, to me, the REAL discussion means sorting though all kinds of evidence to see what holds up.

And the law is no guide here. You say it yourself, over and over. Law is not like science, or social analysis. In the law one finds out how to persuade people to accept a point of view. It depends not on truth but on the persuasive skill of an advocate, who yes has to sound at least plausible but also knows how to get people to buy in. It’s like sales, advertizing, and in a lot of cases, like religion too. But when I look around at the wide array of things I also see that there are ways of looking at things where the so-called persuasive skill of an advocate can be exploded as bs if what is being said does not stand up to real scrutiny. Scrutiny that depends on, and values, evidence and reason, not on the persuasive ability to get people to buy in. So what I refer to has nothing to do with what people want to hear, or how they feel…it holds up or it doesn’t.

Show me direct evidence that there are valid studies rejecting what is being said here, and you know what? We actually can sort through it all and find the ones that have the better arguments. You can do that on many issues, including this one.

So for example it is easy these days to get some people to buy into “islam is violent as a religion and so it itself is the problem, that’s what we are at war with, a religion.” Yet if you look around and actually examine the diversity of islam and the different situations it exists in, you find that that generalization is not true. The studies that purport to show the generalization is true do not stand up to actual, real scrutiny. So it doesn’t matter if someone can persuade someone to believe it, or if someone says, based on what they personally think is true based on their own experience. They’re still wrong. It can be shown that they are wrong.

‘CBS News’ Unloads Trump Election Meddling Surprise Scandal

http://bipartisanreport.com/2017/04/06/cbs-news-unloads-trump-election-meddling-surprise-scandal-hes-busted/

CBS News is reporting that they have obtained information on evidence pointing to Trump campaign operatives being involved with the Russian election meddling operation as early as March 2016, before the major parties’ respective primary seasons had even concluded.

The new CBS report states:

‘CBS News has learned that U.S. investigators are looking into whether Trump campaign representatives had a role in helping Russian intelligence as it carried out cyberattacks on the Democratic National Committee and other political targets in March 2016.’

As CBS goes on to explain, this new information points to the investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia going deeper and farther back than originally reported.

Indeed, although Roger Stone and Carter Page, both disgraced Trump advisers, had contact with Russian operatives after March 2016, this new information suggests that there was collusion between Trump and the Russians before that time. The distinction is important for the effort to distinguish whether or not the Trump campaign “unwittingly” helped the Russians along or whether it was an intentional effort from the start.

In March 2016, as mentioned, the primary season in both of the nation’s two major political parties was still technically underway.

CBS says that March 2016 is also when a “declassified intelligence assessment” says that Russian hackers “began cyber operations aimed at the U.S. election.” That same assessment apparently goes on to report that these Russian hackers stole “large volumes of data from the DNC” in May of 2016. That information was then first posted online in June 2016.

The question then is what level, if any, of cooperation took place between the Trump campaign and the Russian hackers behind the thefts of data from the DNC. The data that was stolen included tens of thousands of private emails from figures including the now resigned head of the Democratic National Committee Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.

Mark Warner, a Democratic U.S. Senator from Virginia, termed what the Russians did with that information as having “weaponized” it while speaking earlier this week at a hearing of the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee on the Russian election meddling. The Russians employed tens of thousands of individuals for the purposes of spreading sensationalized tidbits of the stolen information online, tidbits which eventually compounded into a “disinformation” force strong enough to sink the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.

CBS says that part of the FBI’s ongoing investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election will seek to uncover who paid those professional trolls.

Trump and his team certainly haven’t done anything to help their case, seeing as sitting U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the disgraced and now resigned presidential National Security Adviser Michael Flynn have both been ratted out as having lied about meeting with Russian Ambassador to the United States Sergei Kisylak in the months ahead of Election Day 2016. Kisylak is a known intelligence gatherer for the Russians.

Other strikes against the Trump campaign include a secret meeting that Trump campaign staffer Carter Page had with still unidentified Russian individuals in June of 2016, along with an August 2016 tweet from Roger Stone which suggested that he had been tipped off as to or was otherwise aware of the content of the material stolen from the Democrats.

DEMOCRATS ARE WRONG: TRUMP SUPPORTERS WERE MORE MOTIVATED BY RACISM THAN ECONOMIC ISSUES

https://theintercept.com/2017/04/06/top-democrats-are-wrong-trump-supporters-were-more-motivated-by-racism-than-economic-issues/

IT ISN’T ONLY Republicans, it seems, who traffic in alternative facts. Since Donald Trump’s shock election victory, leading Democrats have worked hard to convince themselves, and the rest of us, that his triumph had less to do with racism and much more to do with economic anxiety — despite almost all of the available evidence suggesting otherwise.

Consider Bernie Sanders, de facto leader of the #Resistance. “Some people think that the people who voted for Trump are racists and sexists and homophobes and deplorable folks,” he said at a rally in Boston on Friday, alongside fellow progressive senator Elizabeth Warren. “I don’t agree.” Writing in the New York Times three days after the election last November, the senator from Vermont claimed Trump voters were “expressing their fierce opposition to an economic and political system that puts wealthy and corporate interests over their own”.

Warren agrees with him. “There were millions of people across this country who voted for [Trump] not because of his bigotry, but in spite of that bigotry” because the system is “not working for them economically,” the Massachusetts senator told MSNBC last year.

Both Sanders and Warren seem much keener to lay the blame at the door of the dysfunctional Democratic Party and an ailing economy than at the feet of racist Republican voters. Their deflection isn’t surprising. Nor is their coddling of those who happily embraced an openly xenophobic candidate. Look, I get it. It’s difficult to accept that millions of your fellow citizens harbor what political scientists have identified as “racial resentment.” The reluctance to acknowledge that bigotry, and tolerance of bigotry, is still so widespread in society is understandable. From an electoral perspective too, why would senior members of the Democratic leadership want to alienate millions of voters by dismissing them as racist bigots?

Facts, however, as a rather more illustrious predecessor of President Trump once remarked, “are stubborn things.” Interestingly, on the very same day that Sanders offered his evidence-free defense of Trump voters in Boston, the latest data from the American National Election Studies (ANES) was released.

Philip Klinkner, a political scientist at Hamilton College and an expert on race relations, has pored over this ANES data and tells me that “whether it’s good politics to say so or not, the evidence from the 2016 election is very clear that attitudes about blacks, immigrants, and Muslims were a key component of Trump’s appeal.” For example, he says, “in 2016 Trump did worse than Mitt Romney among voters with low and moderate levels of racial resentment, but much better among those with high levels of resentment.”

The new ANES data only confirms what a plethora of studies have told us since the start of the presidential campaign: the race was about race. Klinkner himself grabbed headlines last summer when he revealed that the best way to identify a Trump supporter in the U.S. was to ask “just one simple question: is Barack Obama a Muslim?” Because, he said, “if they are white and the answer is yes, 89 percent of the time that person will have a higher opinion of Trump than Clinton.” This is economic anxiety? Really?

Other surveys and polls of Trump voters found “a strong relationship between anti-black attitudes and support for Trump”; Trump supporters being “more likely to describe African Americans as ‘criminal,’ ‘unintelligent,’ ‘lazy’ and ‘violent’”; more likely to believe “people of color are taking white jobs”; and a “majority” of them rating blacks “as less evolved than whites.” Sorry, but how can any of these prejudices be blamed on free trade or low wages?

For Sanders, Warren and others on the left, the economy is what matters most and class is everything. Yet the empirical evidence just isn’t there to support them. Yes Trump won a (big) majority of non-college-educated whites, but he also won a majority of college-educated whites, too. He won more young white voters than Clinton did and also a majority of white women; he managed to win white votes regardless of age, gender, income or education. Class wasn’t everything in 2016. In a recent essay in The Nation, analysts Sean McElwee and Jason McDaniel point out that “income predicted support for McCain and Romney, but not Trump.” Their conclusion? “Racial identity and attitudes have further displaced class as the central battleground of American politics.”

Their view is backed by a detailed Gallup analysis of interviews with a whopping 125,000 Americans, which found that Trump supporters, far from being the “left behind” or the losers of globalization, “earn relatively high household incomes and are no less likely to be unemployed or exposed to competition through trade or immigration.” The “bottom line” for Gallup’s senior economist Jonathan Rothwell? “Trump’s popularity cannot be neatly linked to economic hardship.”

Look, if you still believe that Trump’s appeal was rooted in economic, and not racial, anxiety, ask yourself the following questions: Why did a majority of Americans earning less than $50,000 a year vote for Clinton, not Trump, according to the exit polls? Why, in the key Rust Belt swing states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, did most voters who cited the economy as “the most important issue facing the country” opt for Hillary over the Donald? And why didn’t black or Latino working class voters flock to Trump with the same fervor as white working class voters? Or does their economic insecurity not count?

To be clear, no one is saying there weren’t any legitimate economic grievances in Trumpland, nor is anyone claiming that the economy played no role whatsoever. The point, however, is that it wasn’t the major motivating factor for most Trump voters — or, at least, that’s what we learn when we bother to study those voters. Race trumped economics.

Defenders of the economy narrative have a “gotcha” question of their own: how can racial resentment have motivated Trump supporters when so many of them voted for Barack Obama, across the Rust Belt, in 2008 and 2012? “They’re not racists,” filmmaker Michael Moore passionately argued last November. “They twice voted for a man whose middle name is Hussein.”

Klinkner, though, gives short shrift to this argument. First, he tells me, “most of them didn’t vote for Obama. There weren’t many vote switchers between 2012 and 2016.” Second, “working class whites shifted to Trump less because they were working class than because they were white.” Klinkner points out that in 2016, Clinton, unlike Obama, faced a Republican candidate who “pushed the buttons of race and nativism in open and explicit ways that John McCain and Mitt Romney were unwilling or unable to do.”

If Democrats are going to have any chance of winning back the White House in 2020, they have to understand why they lost in 2016, and that understanding has to be based on facts and figures, however inconvenient or awkward. The Sanders/Warren/Moore wing of the party is right to focus on fair trade and income equality; the calls for higher wages and better regulation are morally and economically correct. What they are not, however, is some sort of silver bullet to solve the issue of racism. As the University of California’s Michael Tesler, author of “Post-Racial or Most-Racial? Race and Politics in the Obama Era,” has pointed out, the “evidence suggests that racial resentment is driving economic anxiety, not the other way around.”

Always remember: You have to identify the disease before you can begin work on a cure. In the case of support for Donald Trump, the results are in: It isn’t the economy. It’s the racism, stupid.