JDaveG

Yeah. I'm putting less than zero stock in a dude whose bio brags about winning arguments in various countries. As if that is a mark of journalism. I call bull**** "Baxter Dmitry Baxter Dmitry is a writer at Your News Wire. He covers politics, business and entertainment. Speaking truth to power since he learned to talk, Baxter has travelled in over 80 countries and won arguments in every single one. Live without fear. Email: baxter@yournewswire.com Follow: @baxter_dmitry"

You don't know what a realist or realism is. Amd that's the truth.

Yeah, but I have some thoughts. TE and RB ought to be keys for us. Maybe WR. We'll need to re-stock the shelves on offense. We also need S help (pending Allen's further development and Kazee's development) and probably a corner on defense. That's just the skill position. I hope we continue drafting for both lines. DT and OG are the biggest issues, but we could use depth everywhere along the lines. Even at DE -- I wouldn't be mad if they got another DE in the first. Not even a little bit. And please, for the love of God, get us a mid-round QB to develop.

I don't blame Quinn. If Matt throws a TD there we're never talking about this. Or at least, the talk would have subsided really quickly. "We almost lost the game" isn't the same as "I can't believe we lost that game."

See, from where I sit he's an optimist, sometimes to a fault, and you're a pessimist, sometimes to a fault. There is no realism involved. I still love you though -- you're a true blue fan, thick or thin. Even when you don't come across that way. And it kills me you didn't get your rest when it was well within our grasp. I'm still basically an optimist, but that loss hurt. A lot. More than 1980. Way more than 1998. That game was ours and we let it get away.

Truth? The coin flip won that game for the Patriots in the end. Yeah, we should have scored more. Yeah, we should have stopped them from scoring. But if we win the coin toss, we likely win the game. Ryan knew it the minute they won the toss too. The defense was done.

I didn't say it isn't wrong. I said there appears to be a lot of assumption that it's illegal. I think it's a relevant distinction. I think it's plenty enough to warrant voting against Trump. I think it could rise to the level of an impeachable offense if Trump knew what Jr. was doing (and there is reason to think he would have). I think it warrants an investigation. Just because I'm unconvinced it's the same thing doesn't mean I consider what he did a moral good.

Because the hacked e-mails constitute a crime committed by the Russian government in order to influence our election, and we don't (yet) know what information the lady who met with Jr. supposedly had (he says she didn't have any at all), much less where it came from. I conceded above that if her actions were illegal, then it's the same. But I also haven't seen a credible argument that they were.

I don't know enough about election law to know whether those efforts are illegal or not, but the purpose is to help Trump get elected. But that's the purpose of getting dirt on an opponent from any source, so I don't see it as being the same. Now, if you're right that her efforts were illegal, then Jr. is in a world of ****. But the only thing I've seen suggesting that's illegal is the argument that opposition research is a "thing of value" per our election laws, and I find that argument to be badly wanting for reasons I've stated well upstream. Giving someone free tour buses instead of cash isn't quite the same as saying "I have some dirt on your opponent you might want to look at" with no promise of a quid pro quo in return.

Oh, I don't see Trump having the temperament to let the process play out. I'm not saying he's going to come out of this unscathed, or even that he didn't collude with Russia over the DNC hacking. I'm just saying that accusing him of helping to hack the DNC and release the emails doesn't get us to "Aha! Collusion!" when the collusion in question is to get some unspecified dirt on Clinton. Now, if it comes out that the dirt in question was hacked DNC e-mails, that's AT LEAST knowledge of what they were doing, failure to report to the proper authorities, etc. That, IMHO, is treasonous. And if Trump knew, he goes down with Jr. (or, perhaps, he's a big enough POS to let Jr. take the fall for it). And if he didn't know (or if he lets Jr. take the fall), that would still be enough to bring down his presidency, if not by impeachment at least by a lopsided re-election loss. For me, I didn't vote for him anyway, and I've seen nothing since his inauguration that leads me to believe I should. I would certainly argue Jr's lack of judgment, combined with Trump trusting him to be part of the administration, is enough reason for decent Republicans to refuse to vote for him. But then, partisans tend to not be very decent, so I'm more hopeful than optimistic.

Well, no, collusion isn't collusion. I colluded with my wife to have chicken and rice for dinner last night. Jr. apparently tried to collude with a Russian agent to get dirt on Clinton. Trump was accused of colluding with Russia to hack the DNC and throw the election. Those are 3 very different types of collusion.

Oh, of course. I've been on board with investigating from day 1.

I don't. I only know there is no evidence that it is.