Well, I'm sorry we couldn't work together. You know, as friends.

And again, no. The only thing you have right about me is my quote above. The inference you made was your own. Not mine. Then, you argued against that.

Shame.

I see potential evidence. I don't see lockdown, rock-solid evidence. You do. Fine. If you're right, Mueller will bring charges to substantiate that. On your second point, again, no. I didn't criticize the idea that people should hold their leaders accountable.

Show me, exactly, where I said that.

The escalation of this discussion started with you. You accused me of sleeping through the last few days, remember? Was that being respectful, or were you being an ass? You and I both know the answer to that.

The point I made was clear: if Mueller has the evidence, than Trump will ultimately go down.

What's not to understand about that?

Are we clear yet?

The evidence is clear, eh? We have evidence that some volunteer worker from Trump's campaign lied to the FBI. From that, you have deduced that we have rock-solid evidence that Trump colluded with Russia during the election.

This guy may provide additional evidence. At this point, we don't know what that is, what impact it may have, or what it will amount to. But apparently, you do. You know the evidence is already in. That Trump's goose is cooked.

Good for you. Other folks are not quite so sure yet. And that really bothers you.

A Republican columnist cogently explains why so many of us are talking past each other in this thread:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/opinion/mueller-trump-...

I'm not backpedalling on anything. There are no inconsistencies between the two quotes of mine in your post.

Read the Papadopolous indictment. That is literally what it explains. I'm not basing this on innuendo, but quotes from the actual indictment. I'm not trying to be an asshole (to you) but I think you don't grasp the facts of that indictment. For what it's worth, you're also interpreting the quoted bit from my previous post to say more than it does.

A link has been proven. We have a campaign official pleading guilty to lying to the FBI about attempting to set up the meeting I mentioned. That doesn't prove collusion: I've never said as much. But it does establish a clear link, with intent, and approval from a yet-named senior campaign official.

What I'm saying is fact. Not innuendo. I'm not sure why this is even debatable. And I certainly don't understand how somebody could read that indictment and disagree with what I'm saying so vehemently as to think this level of condescension is justified.

Here's the link: https://www.justice.gov/file/1007346/download

The highlights include:

"From mid-June through mid-August 2016, PAPADOPOULOS pursued an “off the record” meeting between one or more Campaign representatives and “members of president putin’s office and the mfa.” For example, on or about June 19, 2016, after several email and Skype exchanges with the Russian MFA Connection, defendant PAPADOPOULOS emailed the High Ranking Campaign Official, with the subject line “New message from Russia”: “The Russian ministry of foreign affairs messaged and said that if Mr. Trump is unable to make it to Russia, if a campaign rep (me or someone else) can make it for meetings? I am willing to make the trip off the record if it’s in the interest of Mr. Trump and the campaign to meet specific people.” After several weeks of further communications regarding a potential “off the record” meeting with Russian officials, on or about August 15, 2016, the Campaign Supervisor told defendant PAPADOPOULOS that “I would encourage you” and another foreign policy adviser to the Campaign to “make the trip[], if it is feasible.”

And:

"The government notes that the official forwarded defendant PAPADOPOULOS’s email to another Campaign official (without including defendant PAPADOPOULOS) and stated: “Let[‘]s discuss. We need someone to communicate that DT is not doing these trips. It should be someone low level in the campaign so as not to send any signal.”

Bear in mind, the attempted meeting was arranged after Papadopolous was informed that Russia had illegally hacked emails of Clinton's that contained "dirt" on her. He also claims -- on the record -- to have told a Foreign Advisor meeting in March that he could arrange a meeting between Trump and Putin. Trump and Sessions were both present for that, which isn't hugely significant, except in the context of Sessions' sworn testimony insisting he'd heard of no attempt between the Trump campaign and Russia to meet.

So, to lay this out very clearly:

A "junior", "volunteer" campaign official connected with a Russian intelligence carveout multiple times and learned of hacked Clinton emails several months before that knowledge was made public. He notified unnamed senior campaign officials (their names are still redacted in the indictment, which is obviously an attempt to intimidate on Mueller's part) of said emails, and attempted to arrange meetings on behalf of the campaign to obtain said info.

It would, of course, be simple enough to write that off as some volunteer staffer going rogue, which is exactly what the Trump admin and Fox News types have tried to do, except the indictment also includes emails from senior officials encouraging Papadopolous to take the meeting, and another from a senior official congratulating him for a job well done.

That demonstrates a clear link, with intent. It also -- for the record -- demonstrates intent to commit a crime. Those emails were hacked illegally, obviously, and using illegally hacked information is a crime.

None of this proves collusion. None of it means the whole administration is coming down. But it does show a clear, legally proven link between the campaign and Russia in the form of emails between Papadopolous and senior campaign officials. That's irrefutable at this point.

With that context, let's now consider:

That Trump Jr. and Kushner took a meeting in Trump Tower to discuss adoption or whatever, and lied about it until the details came forward. That meeting was set up exactly one month after Papadpolous was given permission to arrange a meeting. The two certainly may be unrelated, but there's a troubling pattern of behavior here, correct?

Likewise, both Sessions and Kushner have repeatedly lied about the extent of their connections with Russians, and had to backtrack. Monday's proves another instance of this on Sessions part, where he was present in a meeting during which Papadopoulos offered to arrange a meeting between Trump and Putin. Again, that could be innocent enough. Sessions may have simply forgotten. But it demonstrates a pattern of behavior.

Meanwhile, I haven't said there's been proven collusion. I haven't called for impeachment. I haven't called for anybody else to go to prison.

All I said was -- and this was in the same fucking sentence you decided to only quote the first segment of, "There's a preponderance of evidence linking the Trump administration to Russia and we owe it to our republic to examine that. . ."

So, I've "put up". By quoting a widely reported news event. So now it's your turn. I've asked you to explain why Monday's news doesn't indicate a clear link, and you've chosen not to do so.

So now explain why you feel justified in being so condescending in your disagreement with what I've posted. Knock yourself out, and excited to learn how and why I'm "way out of line."

This still seems to be unfolding as I expected. The number of people boycotting the NFL continues to grow, particularly this Veteran's Day weekend. I have a hard time believing that their revenue model isn't seriously effected, and I stronly believe that we will see a major adjustment in player salaries come time to sign free agents and draftees next year, and I expect the adjustment to be permanent, since I don't think viewership will ever recover, what with other issues out there like CTE. I'm not saying that pro football is dead, just that it will never again be what it once was.

I'm not saying it's a non-factor, but it's hard to pinpoint the rating issue on just one thing, as you even allude to here. The increasing awareness of the deleterious effects of the game itself and the rapid demise of the bundled cable subscriber base seem more likely to be eating in to the profit stream and driving football -- pee-wee, high school, college and pro -- from the dominant sport of the last 20+ years to a niche sport in just a generation or two.

You're wrong in just about every way here. Many players are donating a lot of time, effort and money to a variety of causes, starting with Kaepernick. Kneeling certainly offends some people, but it's mostly because they hate anything but unquestioning fealty toward this country have unilaterally decided it's all about "disrespecting the troops" or "hating Murrrcah" and have ignored what protesting players are actually saying and doing beyond a two-minute song. This mile-long thread is but one small slice of proof that a bunch of presumably white middle-aged dudes ARE thinking and talking about the root issue here.

I freely admit that I haven't read the thread from end to end, but in the times I have read it, I've not seen any posts discussing the underlying issues. Rather it seems to have devolved into general politics, Trump, Hillary, Mueller, etc.

We discussed this before and respectfully disagreed. But, I'll repeat that I don't believe these guys are modern-day Rosa Parkses, Ralph Abernathys, Roy Innises, or any of a host of others you might name who made a real mark during the Civil Rights Era of the 1960s. Back in the 1960s there was an expression "plastic hippie," which referred to someone who had the outward appearance of a hippie, but was not really committed to the lifestyle and was not willing to suffer for the cause. I submit that these NFL players are "plastic protesters" who are a mere shadow of the real thing and whose actions ring hollow. I know you totally disagree with this analysis, and that's OK. Neither of us will probably live long enough to know how history will assess these protests, but I suspect they will be judged harshly.

I plan to be alive in 50 years. I think we'll look back on these protests positively long before that. We'll see.

https://sports.yahoo.com/despite-threat-boycott-attendanc...

According to this article, the league's attendance was up this weekend.

What I notice as a one-time fan who would now say that he casually watches is that the quality of play is abysmal and the games are too slow to keep me overly interested. If you just look at QB play now, who's elite? Brees, Brady, Wentz...and who else? Alex Smith has looked pretty good this year, Matt Ryan is pretty good, but most others are middling. It's hard to get too fired up about a league that has Kizer, Beathard, Taylor, Fitzpatrick, Brissett, Hundley, and Savage starting at QB. This league has a star problem, quite the opposite of where the NBA is right now (and, I think where baseball is getting now as well).