AmishBengalFan

Sigh. And now you drag new items into the debate, demanding that I acknowledge something that's never been a part of the discussion between us, without addressing a single question I've raised about your unsupported claims, and without even hinting at retracting out-of-bounds ad hominem comments you've made about my "motivation". I held you in higher regard, but this has proven to be a waste of time. My mistake, for which I apologize. Rest assured, it is not one I plan to repeat.... since it is apparent that I cannot change or influence your behavior positively, I'll modify my own behavior and just reach for the "ignore Jamie" button. If I may make a suggestion. It seems to me that your hatred of Trump is getting in the way of you talking clearly with others - particularly if it seems that those others don't share your hatred of Trump. Until *this* part of our exchange I have refrained from making comments about your motivation or demeanor, but as it appears that I will no longer be seeing things you'll be posting to this site it seems appropriate to share them with you now. You will do yourself a favor if, when debating topics that you feel passionate about, you can stay on topic and focus on what your opponent *says* rather than lashing out at what your believe your opponent *is*. During our exchange, I refused to allow you to turn the debate into a debate about me or my motivation, in spite of three attempts by you to do just that. Sure, it's easy to fall into the trap of dismissing what a person has to say because you don't agree with who that person is, but the "well, you smell bad!" argument doesn't really hold water when you're debating a topic unrelated to body odor. Similarly, trying to knock me down a peg personally when I'm not saying things you can argue against logically isn't going to do much except label you as someone who likes to go low when they have no other recourse within the debate itself.

I read your previous comments about the President's "intent" to either sign or not sign the budget, based on the content therein delivered to him for signature. But as *I* pointed out, the President was never presented with a Bill for his signature, due to the math that required 60 votes in the Senate for passage. 45 members of the minority party voted NO, effectively halting the entire process. Doesn't matter a whit if the President would or would not have signed that bill, as soon as 41 Senators voted no the entire point was moot. They shut down the Government. And when they returned to the Senate three days later to reverse their votes, the Bill went to the President - and he signed it, which seems to also render your argument moot. What I'm failing to understand is why you are continuing to lay blame at the President's feet for a government shutdown that he was powerless to prevent, while conveniently ignoring the simple mathematics of the voting results within the US Senate. And by extension of your own argument, I am failing to understand why now, with the President having TWICE in the past 4 weeks signed Budget Bills, that you're not crediting him for avoiding a government shutdown. Seems that if he's responsible for failure, he's also responsible for success of the exact same thing. And, for the record, of the two of us you are the only one raising questions about motivation or intent. You stated "But you already knew that, so what was the purpose of that reply?". You stated that I was "purposefully being disingenuous", and then again pulled out the "disingenuous" phrase a third time. Purpose, purposefully, and disingenuous.... these are all calling into question or making assumptions about my motivation. None of them had a single thing do to with Washington, and all of them were ad hominem. I am hoping to pull you back into the debate, a debate that is based on claims that YOU voluntarily made, yet three times you have intentionally drifted off-topic into attacks against the person you're debating.

I'm trying to keep you on point... >>> The point being your blaming of Trump for a Bill's defeat in the Senate a few weeks ago, and your noticed lack of credit for the passage of a similar Bill in the Senate last night. ... but it seems that you're ignoring that, wishing instead to discuss my motivation for wanting to keep you on point. If you're attempting to deflect by turning this into a discussion of my motives or about some attribute of me as a person, then you're argument has fallen into a logical fallacy. A reminder: Linky: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem As stated previously, I would prefer to debate matters of fact than your opinion of me. Would you like to continue to discuss Trump and his Senate voting record, or are you effectively yielding the debate by wanting to change this into a discussion about me? I'm okay with it either way, though if it's the latter please understand that we're done here. All I am really interested in is how the Chief Executive is in any way responsible for how 100 (well, 99) duly-elected Senators cast the votes granted to them by the citizens of their respective states and in accordance with the Constitution. As a duly-sworn member of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, I'm keenly and personally invested in this allegation. But if the debate is over because you're conceding the seeming (to me) ill-logic of that position by offering no defense and instead going Ad hominem, that's okay too.... I guess. It would be sad, but at least there would be closure. By the way, I would prefer to think that you just made a simple mistake. You're a valuable member on this site and I would hate to miss seeing your future contributions. It is much easier to forgive a mistake than it is to overlook the taint associated with a potential personal attack rooted in ignorance or maliciousness.

Jamie, any speculation on how Trump will cast his 100 votes on the Senate Bill today? I ask, because the logic of your argument seems to be that the Chief Executive is responsible for how all 100 Senators vote (well, 99 since I don't know McCain's status). You laid blame at his feet when Budget Bill failed to get 60 Senators to vote in favor of it. Senators like Donald Trump-Feinstein (D-CA), Donald Trump-Gillibrand (D-NY), Donald Trump-Hirono (D-HI), Donald Trump-Menendez (D-NJ), Donald Trump-Murphy (D-CT), Donald Trump-Sanders (D-VT), Donald Trump-Tester (D-MT), and Donald Trump-Warren (D-MS), all of whom voted NO, resulting in the Government being shut down in January. Source: How Every Senator Voted on the Government Shutdown (NY Times) I presume if it fails again today, you'll be ready to blame him solely and personally for that. But I also presume that you're preparing to heap praise and credit on him for the Bill's passage today if it garners 60+ votes, right?

I use Windscribe VPN. They offer a free account which you could use as a trial. It comes with 10GB/month for life, but as soon as you open it you can apply the following voucher codes: 50GBFREE = Increases your cap to 50GB/mo for life SOS60GBS = Increases the 50GB cap to 60GB - might have been a limited offer, YMMV The free account offers access to 14 servers (US Central, US East, US West, Canada East, Canada West, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Switzerland, UK, and Hong Kong) from one machine. The pro version bumps that up to 50+ countries, unlimited bandwidth and unlimited # of connections. Their pro version is expensive if you go with their advertised rates ($9/mo, $49/yr) but they offer regular deals that appear on Slickdeals.net - I got a lifetime subscription for $29 a few months ago. Feature-wise, it includes killswitch, which blocks internet activity if your connection drops. It also supports IKEv2 compression (albeit in beta) which can dramatically increase your thruput. Torrentfreak gives Windscribe a POSITIVE review for privacy: https://torrentfreak.com/vpn-services-anonymous-review-2017-170304/#windscribe If you're still shopping around, I would recommend signing up for a free account and giving it a spin. Use a disposable email address for signup - they only send me one email a month (to let me know my 60GB has been reset) but others report getting weekly marketing emails pushing their pro version. I use the free account on my kid's computer, my personal Chromebook, and on my Android phone - I've never come close to hitting my bandwidth limit. I use a different pro account at home on my other systems as my router doesn't support direct VPNing.

If you've never seen this, it's worth watching the entire 45 minutes. Thrilling, and heartbreaking, at the same time. The Missing Rings: 1988 Cincinnati Bengals NFL Films / NFL Network

1) Thanks for acknowledging that the President does not vote in the Senate, though that still seems to contradict your original comment about Trump affecting the Senate vote. The only member of the Executive Branch that in any way affects Senate votes is the Vice President, who assumes the role of President of the Senate and only votes in case of a tie. A recent example was when VP Pence cast the 101st vote during the confirmation of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. But as I'm sure you know, the President and Vice President are different people. Even if the VP were out of town, the President doesn't get to take his place and vote in case the Senate were to end up deadlocked. 2) Breitbart?? What does that matter? There are 100 Senators (well, 99 since McCain is sick) who vote. 60 yes votes are necessary to pass a budget bill. 51 of the 100 are Republicans, 49 are Democrats, therefore members of both parties must vote in favor to achieve the 60 vote supermajority. The minority party - who this year happen to be the Democrats - cannot pass anything on their own, but they can halt passage of bills requiring a supermajority, such as the budget. This they did by casting 45 votes against passage. That act defeated the measure, and without a budget the government went into shut down. When they came back on Monday, they changed their votes, allowing the Senate to pass the bill 81-18, moving it to the President for his signature. The process is the same whether the President's name is Trump or Obama or Clinton or Bush or Reagan or Nixon or Truman or Buchannon or Jefferson.... the Legislative Branch passes bills, the Executive Branch either signs or vetoes. Neither Brietbart, nor Trump, nor ABF, nor you have a say in that process, it is reserved to the elected representatives who vote in the House and Senate. And in the case of last Friday's vote, the 45 Nay votes cast by the Democrats were more than sufficient to defeat the budget bill, and as a direct consequence result in the weekend government shut down. Cause.... effect. 3) You don't know what I know or do not know. Please refrain from anything bordering on ad hominem attacks, it only further weakens your argument. In my debate class in college, the prof used to hammer home the perspective that the first person to attack their opponent rather than their opponent's position immediately loses. I would rather debate matters of fact than your opinion of me. Linky: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Good question. One would have to go back to Year One (the AFL-NFL merger) and run the numbers forward from there.

Umm..... the President does not vote in the Senate. The House passed a budget bill, the Senate failed to do so. The President had nothing to do with the 44 Democrats and 5 Republicans who voted "no" on Friday. Those 49 Senators did that entirely on their own. Knowledge is Power, my friend.

True, but as it takes a 60-vote supermajority to pass a budget bill in the Senate, it's kinda moot, as the majority party holds only a 51-49 edge in the Senate. What you said is accurate, but it kinda implies that that "one party" failed to avoid a shutdown because they couldn't muster enough AYE votes... the majority party in the Senate only has 51 of the 60 votes they would need for passage. It only takes 41 NAY votes in the Senate to fail a budget bill, and the 49 members of the minority party (who voted 5-44 to fail the bill) did more than what was necessary to shut down the Government.

2017 In spite of a crappy year, two late season wins keep the Bengals well clear of the relegation zone. They remain in Tier 2 and will play there in 2018. Tier-1 p13-3 - New England (1) - Overall Champions p13-3 - Pittsburgh (5) p10-6 - Kansas City (3) 9-7 - Dallas (2) 9-7 - Seattle (8) 7-9 - Green Bay (9) 5-11 v Denver (13) - Relegated 3-13 v NY Giants (7) - Relegated Tier-2 p13-3 ^ Philadelphia (22) - Tier Champion, Promoted p10-6 ^ Atlanta (6) - Promoted 9-7 - Detroit (12) 9-7 - Baltimore (19) 8-8 - Arizona (20) 7-9 - Cincinnati (24) 4-12 v Houston (11) - Relegated 4-12 v Indianapolis (18) - Relegated Tier-3 p13-3 ^ Minnesota (17) - Tier Champion, Promoted p11-5 ^ New Orleans (23) - Promoted p11-5 - Carolina (25) p9-7 - Buffalo (21) 7-9 - Washington (16) 6-10 - Oakland (4) 6-10 v Miami (10) - Relegated 5-11 v NY Jets (26) - Relegated Tier-4 p11-5 ^ LA Rams (28) - Tier Champion, Promoted p10-6 ^ Jacksonville (30) - Promoted p9-7 - Tennessee (15) 9-7 - LA Chargers (27) 6-10 - San Francisco (31) 5-11 - Tampa Bay (14) 5-11 - Chicago (29) 0-16 - Cleveland (32) - Dead Last Notes: New England wins the Overall Championship over Pittsburgh due to having a better record LAST year (both finished 13-3 and made the playoffs, so prior year's rankings breaks the tie). Houston (4-12) and Indy (4-12) keep Cincy well clear of relegation, but Tier 2 will be a lot tougher next year with the Zimmers and Saints moving in. Cleveland finishes dead last, again. The 2017 overall rankings (used for 2018 tiebreakers) would be: 1 p13-3 New England (1) 2 p13-3 Pittsburgh (5) 3 p13-3 Minnesota (17) 4 p13-3 Philadelphia (22) 5 p11-5 New Orleans (23) 6 p11-5 Carolina (25) 7 p11-5 LA Rams (28) 8 p10-6 Kansas City (3) 9 p10-6 Atlanta (6) 10 p10-6 Jacksonville (30) 11 p9-7 Tennessee (15) 12 p9-7 Buffalo (21) 13 9-7 Dallas (2) 14 9-7 Seattle (8) 15 9-7 Detroit (12) 16 9-7 Baltimore (19) 17 9-7 LA Chargers (27) 18 8-8 Arizona (20) 19 7-9 Green Bay (9) 20 7-9 Washington (16) 21 7-9 Cincinnati (24) 22 6-10 Oakland (4) 23 6-10 Miami (10) 24 6-10 San Francisco (31) 25 5-11 Denver (13) 26 5-11 Tampa Bay (14) 27 5-11 NY Jets (26) 28 5-11 Chicago (29) 29 4-12 Houston (11) 30 4-12 Indianapolis (18) 31 3-13 NY Giants (7) 32 0-16 Cleveland (32) And the 2018 alignment will be: T-1: NEP/01 PIT/02 PHI/04 KCC/08 ATL/09 DAL/13 SEA/14 GBP/19 T-2: MIN/03 NOS/05 DET/15 BAL/16 ARI/18 CIN/21 DEN/25 NYG/31 T-3: CAR/06 LAR/07 JAX/10 BUF/12 WAS/20 OAK/22 HOU/29 IND/30 T-4: TEN/11 LAC/17 MIA/23 SFF/24 TBB/26 NYJ/27 CHI/28 CLE/32

2016 Update After finally clawing our way to the Top Tier, the wheels immediately fall off and the Bengals get relegated back down to Tier 2: Tier 1 p14-2 - New England (4) - Overall Champion p12-4 - Kansas City (6) p11-5 - Pittsburgh (10) p10-5-1 - Seattle (8) p10-6 - Green Bay (9) 9-7 - Denver (3) 8-8 v Indianapolis (14) - Relegated 6-9-1 v Cincinnati (5) - Relegated Tier 2 p13-3 ^ Dallas (29) - Tier Champion, Promoted p11-5 ^ NY Giants (23) - Promoted p9-7 - Houston (12) 8-8 - Baltimore (26) 7-8-1 - Arizona (2) 7-9 - Philadelphia (18) 7-9 v New Orleans (19) - Relegated 6-10 v Carolina (1) - Relegated Tier 3 p11-5 ^ Atlanta (16) - Tier Champion, Promoted p9-7 ^ Detroit (17) - Promoted 8-7-1 - Washington (13) 8-8 - Minnesota (7) 7-9 - Buffalo (15) 5-11 - NY Jets (11) 5-11 v San Diego (30) - Relegated 2-14 v San Francisco (27) - Relegated Tier 4 p12-4 ^ Oakland (21) - Tier Champion, Promoted p10-6 ^ Miami (22) - Promoted 9-7 - Tampa Bay (25) 9-7 - Tennessee (32) 4-12 - LA Rams (20) 3-13 - Chicago (24) 3-13 - Jacksonville (28) 1-15 - Cleveland (31) - Last Place Overall ^ = Will promote next year - = Will remain next year v = Will relegate next year (#) = 2015 final ranking, used for tiebreaker in 2016 (lower is better) p = was a playoff team (playoff teams win tiebreaks over non-playoff teams, then 2015 rankings) Notes: After three straight promotions, the Bengals crash back down to Tier 2. The 5-11 Jets do NOT relegate to Tier 4, only because they win a tiebreak over the Chargers who DO relegate The 2016 overall rankings (used for 2017 tiebreakers) would be: 1 p14-2 New England (4) 2 p13-3 Dallas (29) 3 p12-4 Kansas City (6) 4 p12-4 Oakland (21) 5 p11-5 Pittsburgh (10) 6 p11-5 Atlanta (16) 7 p11-5 NY Giants (23) 8 p10-5-1 Seattle (8) 9 p10-6 Green Bay (9) 10 p10-6 Miami (22)d 11 p9-7 Houston (12) 12 p9-7 Detroit (17) 13 9-7 Denver (3) 14 9-7 Tampa Bay (25) 15 9-7 Tennessee (32) 16 8-7-1 Washington (13) 17 8-8 Minnesota (7) 18 8-8 Indianapolis (14) 19 8-8 Baltimore (26) 20 7-8-1 Arizona (2) 21 7-9 Buffalo (15) 22 7-9 Philadelphia (18) 23 7-9 New Orleans (19) 24 6-9-1 Cincinnati (5) 25 6-10 Carolina (1) 26 5-11 NY Jets (11) 27 5-11 San Diego (30) -> Los Angeles 28 4-12 LA Rams (20) 29 3-13 Chicago (24) 30 3-13 Jacksonville (28) 31 2-14 San Francisco (27) 32 1-15 Cleveland (31) And the 2017 alignment would be: T-1: NEP/01 DAL/02 KCC/03 PIT/05 NYG/07 SEA/08 GBP/09 DEN/13 T-2: ATL/06 HOU/11 DET/12 IND/18 BAL/19 ARI/20 PHI/22 CIN/24 T-3: OAK/04 MIA/10 WAS/16 MIN/17 BUF/21 NOS/23 CAR/25 NYJ/26 T-4: TBB/14 TEN/15 SDC/27 LAR/28 CHI/29 JAX/30 SFF/31 CLE/32 Green Bay and Denver are "most likely to relegate" in 2017, based on their placement in 2016, while Atlanta seems a lock for Promotion.

2018 Playoff Opponents: 8: Buccaneers, Ravens, Saints 7: Colts, Cowboys, Dolphins, Eagles,Giants, Jaguars, Jets, Patriots, Redskins, Texans 6: Bengals, Browns, Chargers, Falcons, Lions, Packers, Panthers, Stealers 5: Bears, Bills, Cardinals, Seahawks, Titans, Vikings 4: 49ers, Broncos, Chiefs, Raiders, Rams Tampa has 6 division games, all against playoff teams, plus Philly and Pittsburgh Baltimore has 2 against Pittsburgh, plus 3 against the NFC South playoff teams, plus rotation against the Chiefs, plus both AFC wildcards New Orleans has 4 division games against wildcards, plus the other 3 first place NFC teams, plus rotation against the Stealers AFC North: 8/Ravens: PITx2 BUF TEN KCC NOS ATL CAR 6/Bengals: PITx2 KCC NOS ATL CAR 6/Browns: PITx2 KCC NOS ATL CAR 6/Stealers: NEP JAX KCC NOS ATL CAR

Yeah, the results are NOT cause-and-effect. It's more likely the reverse - if you win fewer games, your opponents win more, are more likely to finish higher in the standings, and more likely to make the playoffs.

The order applies only if faced with limited time or resources. If you go up to the Near White North and manage to stay downtown (in either of the Cities), they have a pretty kickass public transportation system. You won't need to rent a car or bother driving, particularly if where you stay is near any of the lightrail stations. I spent an entire weekend there and got from the airport to my hotel to a hockey game in St Paul and back to Mpls, to the football game, and all around the downtown areas of both cities without ever walking more than 3 blocks and without ever having to ride a bus or taxi. I *did* Uber once, but that was only because I was pressed for time to meet someone. You can get a daypass for the light rail for cheap, and can buy your tickets in advance on your smartphone.... get the Metro Transit app.