TBayXXXVII

Clinton got investigated and impeached AFTER he won his second term... not before he ran for the second (nor even his first), term. I'll take your response as "TRUE". Hence, it was purely political and had nothing to do with breaking the law. It was 100% about swaying public perception about Trump and convince people to not vote for him. Obama never would've been investigated for that because it would've happened in a liberal state and no liberal DA was going to do an end around on laws to remove the statute of limitations to prosecute him.

Ok.... True or False, Donald Trump never gets prosecuted on this if he entered the political arena as a Democrat.

True or false... Donald Trump never gets prosecuted on this if he never entered the political arena.

Her case against Trump was nothing more than a dog and pony show for a money grab and to sway the election. The case against her is dog and pony show to pretend that Democrats get prosecuted in liberal strongholds too.

Probably because it was all a dog and pony show when it was about Trump and a slap on the wrist was all that was required. The whole Trump thing was purely about election interference in trying to sway public opinion about Trump, among the "undecided" or "independents". It was never actually about the law or Trump going to jail, it was only about winning the election.

Raiders?

This.

Jerome Bettis

Ok. I'll take your word for it.

Zionists are nationalists, are they not? You're ok with Jews being nationalists and are one of them, but not Americans (and oppose it). I find that interesting and funny.

Interesting....

Dude, don't you know that anytime a whistleblower comes forward, they only have credibility if they support the left? Also, the only time we can hold people accountable for their actions, is if they're on the right. You should know that by now.

E-Trade was founded in 1982 and began online trading in 1992 on AOL. Someone who is 75 right now, was 42 when that happened.

You know, if I knew Trump would actually be president if he won a write-in campaign, I'd vote for him just to piss off liberals.

I agree with a lot of this. Almost every QB is a system QB. Lamar Jackson, for instance, probably doesn't work out well in Tampa under Arians. With that being said, I think it should be easier for teams to find a new QB because they're the ones who know their system and know what traits to look for when it comes to FA's and the draft. Now, the timing may not work, and you need to do what you need to do. In that situation, I'm making sure the contract I'm giving out is one I can move on from if I find someone I like. For example, I think Atlanta was smart in their approach to last off-season and is close to what teams should do. Evaluate your team and see what direction you need to go in at QB. They felt they were a QB away from contending (that part was foolish and a separate topic in of it's own), so they went out and signed a QB to a short term deal that they could walk away from after 2 years. I would have structured it differently, but again, a topic for another discussion. But, they then used a top 10 pick to draft a guy they liked as a possible franchise QB. Now, whether they made the right decision or not will play out, but the approach is what was correct. Don't lock yourself in to a long term deal with a lot of money for a guy who isn't special. On topic, Purdy isn't special. If they want to sign him to a $50M AAV deal, fine, if they can get out of it in 2 years if necessary, with little recourse. I don't follow college football, but I'm willing to bet there's multiple QB's in this draft that are competent. I'm willing to bet more than one of them will be drafted after the Niners 1st round pick. Let's say that guy is Jackson Dart. Simple, trade Purdy for a couple of picks... maybe a 1st and 3rd (if he's that good, they'll get that for him). Heck, take #1 from Tennessee. Anyway, draft Dart at their pick and use the picks from the trade to replace Deebo, bolster the OLine, or add another WR (as mentioned earlier... Aiyuk won't be healthy this year), or another RB because we know McCaffrey's going to get hurt again. The Niners are probably an 8 or 9 win team this year, use the year to develop a QB and spend money to build around him. In 4 years, rinse and repeat.

Thinking and typing on the fly.... #1 - It's low risk for a high reward player, so why not? #2 - They're only on the hook for his base pay, because Miami takes the cap hit on the bonus money. The Eagles would be on the hook next year for any incentives or roster bonus'. I believe Hill's pay this year is only $10M. They can either cut or trade him in the off-season next year and not deal with the $30M hit. I'd do that. Why not? #3 - The Eagles keep kicking the can down the road. They're bigger contracts are always backloaded in base pay so that they can convert that to bonus money and stretch it out longer... or, just cut or trade the player before they have to pay that big number. It's the same thing that the Patriots used to do... trade a guy a year too early instead of a year too late. That way you never have to pay that big number.

To me, money is the issue. I don't think that Purdy is worth $50M. Apparently the Niners think so, well, that's their fault and it will hurt them in the long run if he signs. Still, it seems like Purdy's agent (at least), seems to think Purdy is worth $60M. IF other teams think he is worth that, then I'm sure there'll be teams lined up to give him that money and pony up multiple picks. Kapernick was a one-trick pony that teams figured out. I think players like him... Trey Lance and RG3 are guys who people are buying the hype and getting excited by talent and not seeing the actual player. Jimmy G actually played very well in San Fran, he got to a Super Bowl and NFCCG with less talent on his offense than Purdy did. Deebo was a rookie and their leading receiver with 57 catches and 800 yards. Their best RB was Raheem Mostert with less than 800 yards. Purdy had 1400 yard McCaffrey, Deebo was his WR2 and his WR1 (Aiyuk), had 1300 yards. That offense was light years more talented. Yes, it absolutely does matter why your QB is playing great football. If your QB is playing great because of the team around him, that means you're always going to need a great team around him to get results. THAT kind of QB, you don't pay a lot of money to, because you need to invest it in his supporting cast. If your QB is playing great because he's great, then you invest money in him because when things are optimal, he can still help you win.

Unless you have an elite QB, they're all overrated. Spending money on them, like the $50M you're suggesting for Purdy, is just wasting money. He's a product of the team, not the other way around.

LOL, the ole' "WhO eLsE tHeY gOnNa GeT", fear. Unless you have a legit franchise QB (of which, there's only a real argument for 5 right now [Mahomes, Allen, Jackson, Burrow, & Herbert]), you have a JAG. Purdy is no better or worse than like the other 25 guys who don't stink (and the 5 previously mentioned). Literally, right now there are MULTIPLE QB's who had pro bowl seasons with new teams after being cast off by 1 or more teams previously... Geno Smith, Baker Mayfield, Sam Darnold, and Jared Goff all come to mind. You don't need to be the one who draft's the player. You just need to get them. Just because they didn't fit the situation or scenario they were in previously, it doesn't mean they won't fit your situation. IF Rodgers is healthy, IF Cousins is healthy (that's up to the Niners to figure out), both of them could do at worst, what Purdy can do with the talent that's on that team. Cousins will probably be free... kinda like what Wilson was last year. They'd have to trade for him, but let's be honest, it would probably only cost a 5th rounder at the most. Of course, I'm sure you'll find a way to poo poo the 6th most accurate QB in NFL history. Rodgers is available as well. Both though, as I said previously, it's about cost. I'd rather pay Cousins or Rodgers $10M-$15M for 1 year (or double for 2), than pay Purdy $40M+ for the next 4 years, because Purdy is a JAG. Save the money and use it to fill other needs. Or, I don't know if you've heard, but in 2 weeks there's this thing called the "NFL Draft". What happens is, a bunch of college players are available for teams to pick and add to their team. Interestingly enough, QB's are involved in this. From what I've read, there's like TWELVE QB's who rank in the top 200 of available players. The Niners can draft any one of them in their first 8 picks. Let's keep in mind, before you poo poo that thought too... Brock Purdy was drafted with pick # 262. Let's also keep in mind that there are plenty of other QB's who had multiple pro-bowl caliber seasons, who weren't drafted in the first round. There are plenty who are in the Hall of Fame as well.

Why didn't they just say, "we polled 530 Democrats and 440 normal people"? Wait, my bad... they did. Sorry.

So you're saying that the Niners aren't capable of finding a QB replacement... while touting the QB they found?

I think this statement describes about 25 QB's in the league.

I agree, I don't think it's tough either, it's just a matter of perspective. If you think Purdy is worth a long term deal worth $40M AAV, or more, then you tie your future to Purdy. If you don't, then trading him moving on and looking at a cheaper/short term option is the way to go. Build the supporting cast with the savings. It's up to Lynch and the Niners to decide. Me, I'd take the former. I'd rather have the pick(s), and the money. I don't think Purdy makes the team better. Purdy at $1M allows the Niners to spend a boat load of money to keep their elite defense in tact. Paying him $40M (or more), forces personnel decisions that can make the overall team worse. Of course, this really depends on how much money Rodgers wants/willing to take. If he wants $30M, then I just draft a QB, tag Purdy next year and trade him. If Rodgers will take 2 for $30M, I'll trade Purdy now and develop my QB with Rodgers at the helm and save about $20M or more.

What he's saying is that he's going to vote for the person who promotes a far left-wing ideology as a whole, and the political party of that person doesn't matter. Oh, and that all of the specifics in that ideology don't concern him, just some. All the while, calling you out for only voting Republican.

I don't doubt that the premise of their argument is valid, I just think the extent of their fear is full blown retardation. If it really was an issue, then why are all of these climate change activists flying around the world in their private jets all the time, telling us to buy electric? Then, why is reducing government waste a bigger issue than climate change, where we need to terrorize electric vehicles?