Dr. Strangelove

1 hour ago, Mavric said:

 

I guess that's how I read that description of what's going to happen.  At least something very close to that.  The athletes will sign contracts with the schools and be paid for their play/performance.

 

I guess there may be some semantic difference between and employment contract and a compensation contract but that seems like it's basically the same thing.

That's true, functionally it works the same. But, ultimately, athletes are going to negotiate CBAs which will allow their share of the revenue to go from $15-$20 million to $60-70 million.

I understand that schools want to hold into as much money as possible, but that's where all this is heading anyway. I think I just want the endgame to arrive so college football can stabilize. Instead we're going to wait until the 2030s for everything to play out. 

21 hours ago, Mavric said:

I've said for awhile this is really the only way to get some structure back.

 

 

It's great that they're going to bring the efforts in house. But I'm once again disappointed by the NCAA grasping, kicking, and trying to keep alive a structure that's going to die. 

Why not just declare athletes employees and let the Unionization process play out? That's the endgame for all this anyway. Allowing a $15-$20 million 'salary cap' just kicks the can down the road for a few more seasons. 

As you point out, I do hope that schools use this as an opportunity to address opt-outs!

10 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Just checking on my guy.  

I didn't twice vote for a rapist career grifter everybody with a dozen functioning brain cells warned me about, so there's nothing to check on over here. 

6 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

You doing ok today? 

Eh, I'm alright.

Mocking what you vote for is always fun for me. 

2 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

My Dude, I have not said a civil war or a Civil War is likely, just that it's more plausible than it has been in my lifetime and deserves attention. I mean, I opened with a joke about drawing sabers and Ken Burns. Stop trying to conflate what I've gone to the trouble of qualifying. 

 

But seasoned observers even older than me agree the current partisan climate and continued fueling of Donald Trump's ascendency is unprecedented and dangerous. And everyone on Earth agrees you've been wrong about the things we shouldn't worry about. The Archy move is to say it doesn't rise to the level of Gettysburg, so relax!

We could call it a civil war or just a wacky kerfuffle, but if you play out either a Trump victory or loss it's not too hard to see some ugly stretches ahead. Can you imagine college kids closing campuses across the nation and getting armed responses? Well you don't need much of an imagination to see that playing out on a larger scale if either side believes the other has upped the stakes in partisan revenge. Savvy observers have noted that THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE LEADING CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT HAS PROMISED.  Which part of scorched earth dictatorship don't you understand? 

 

Now if those are the ravings of an unhinged man who has lost most of his followers, and the bullwarks of democracy will step in and protect us, I'm willing to relax. Just saying there's plenty evidence to warrant legitimate concern, as many on this thread have outlined for you. If you want to do your part, I'm sure you will join hands with Liz Cheney to rescue the GOP from its worst impulses. 

 

 

 

These are all really good points.

But, in all honesty, the chances of a Civil War are 0% for a variety of reasons. I think we need to have an honesty talk with people: there's not going to be a civil war because American's just don't care all that much about Democracy nor do they care about the things the leader of the Republican party says or does.

America isn't going to fail because of Civil War, it's going on a downslide because of the apathy and stupidity of it's population. We just have to accept that a large chunk of America simply doesn't care.

2 hours ago, RedDenver said:

 

We've had this same discussion on a wealth tax years ago. I'm not in favor of this particular proposal as I think the 25% rate is too high and/or the $100 million threshold is too low. But in general a wealth tax is not a bad idea IMO, which I know you vehemently disagree with. If I was to change the proposal, I would propose something more along the lines of an annual 10% unrealized capital gains tax on wealth over $1 billion. Although a 1% unrealized gains tax starting at $100 million and going up an additional 1% for every $100 million also seems reasonable to me.

 

The biggest problem with any unrealized gains tax is that it greatly matters how the gains are measured. Is it on Jan 1 at midnight? Some average over the past 3 years? 10 years? As Archy points out, what happens if they lose a ton of that wealth the next year? So while I think a wealth tax is fine in concept, in practice it's very hard to see how it would be fairly and consistently applied, which is why I think an inheritance tax (or death tax for the melodramatic) makes a lot more sense.

 

Yes

My main problem with the wealth tax is that it's unnecessary. 

Just raise capital gains tax rates on the sale of stock. Add a surcharge to sales of stock that exceed certain profit amounts ($10, 20, 30 million) or have the capital gains only apply to accounts with a certain balance or individuals with a certain net worth. This way they are only being taxed on the amount of money they actually profit while simultaneously only targeting super rich individuals.

52 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Not sure how.  With no chain of custody, nothing from the lap top should be allowed as evidence.

All part of the deep state plot to keep THE TRUTH hidden. The evidence for Ivermectin, how CRT effects the brain, and the plan for illegals to stream across the OPEN border is on that laptop.

But the left is hiding ALL OF IT!

2 hours ago, nic said:

 

 

“It used to be you would go home at the end of the day, most people would go, ‘Oh, 'Cheers' is on,” he told the publication. “‘Oh, 'M.A.S.H.' is on, oh, 'Mary Tyler Moore' is on. ... You just expected, there’ll be some funny stuff we can watch on TV tonight. Well, guess what? Where is it? This is the result of the extreme left and PC crap, and people worrying so much about offending other people."

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/pop-culture-news/jerry-seinfeld-comments-extreme-left-pc-crap-response-rcna150008

 

This is just really stupid of him to say. 

The longest running comedy show in America is 'It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia' which should be commended for the political correctness and it's aversion to offending people.

Like, does Seinfeld not think before he says something this extremely dumb?

5 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

This is more of what it is than some great knowledge awakening from thinking on your own.  

I'd be willing to bet money most of these kids have no idea that Hamas doesn't believe that Israel has a right to exist, that Hamas has declined the opportunity for the creation of a Palestinian state, or any number of things. 

All of this does not excuse Israel for conducting a poorly thought through and unnecessarily violent war. If there's ever a time to not care about either side in a conflict, it's one where neither side is interested in actual political resolutions to the underlying causes. 

4 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Ok, explain the reality to me about taxing unrealized gains. 
 

the concept is beyond idiotic. 

Isn't the concept similar to property taxes?

3 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Yeah, that fits the profile.  
 

 

I don't know what's happening at Ivy League schools, but Democrats need to pack whatever this stuff is onto a rocket and fire it into the nearest supermassive blackhole, never to be seen or heard from again. 

6 hours ago, ZRod said:

It's definitely not exclusive to the left, but a great deal of it probably has to do with personal awakening in young adults. It's the first time you're really allowed to think on your own and form your own opinions. It's also the first time you're probably learning that the propaganda you've been feed in grade school is a little... lacking in authenticity and the whole story/truth.

This is very true!

I also it's textbook group think -- their friends get super into a cause, and so they do as well to fit in. No kid wants to be an outcast in their social circle. 

Social media has turbocharged all of this. 

14 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Do you really believe a Trump win would make for an actual civil war?   Or even a Trump loss?  

This has strong "do you actually think he won't peacefully transition power" from 2016 vibes. Trump voters are oblivious to the electoral devastation they cause. 

4 minutes ago, teachercd said:

That article is insane!  

 

How much do you guys think the Pro-Hammy dorks are hurting Joe right now?  

 

A little? A lot?  Not at all?

 

Are Pro-Hammy dorks voting and if so are they going to vote for Trump over Biden?

The moronic movement of these college kids isn't likely to affect his raw vote totals from college aged voters themselves - Pro Palestinian protestors don't make up that much of the youth vote, they're just loud and visible.

But it can affect how voters view the Left, which is where the damage is really being done. Biden can't afford any loss of support -- his electoral position is extremely precarious. Trump's odds of winning only get higher. 

10 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Just once I would LOVE to see these dorks actually leave and see what it is like.  Just once.

There's a huge amount of "America bad" that permeates in the American Left, typically concentrated in younger circles.

It's catastrophically stupid. Not as stupid as actually scheming to undermine an election with fake electors, but still very stupid. 

3 hours ago, DevoHusker said:

Other than I think the chart isn't meaningless, I agree with you.

The chart isn't meaningless, but it is misleading. It doesn't account for inflation - $1 dollar added to the national debt in the 1920s went a lot further than $1 dollar in 2024. So any graph dealing with government spending from any country will look similar. But, once again, I'll say that dealing with government spending is impossible for a number of reasons.

When accounting for % of GDP, the national debt is high but it isn't the 

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

Thanks for sharing.  Great indication of how crazy spending has become for the US Government.   
 

I think the treasury needs interest rates to come down even more than the normal citizen based on how much US debt is going to roll over into higher rates soon. 

One major policy mistake made over the last several administrations has been that they did not issue longer term bonds at near 0% rates. I'm not an economist nor am I an expert in Fiscal Policy, but I'd hope the government has a plan to better take advantage of the next time the United States finds itself in a near 0% interest rate environment. 

1 minute ago, Mavric said:

 

 

Please Football gods, let this happen during the season. 

27 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I appreciate the perspective and don't disagree. But regardless who starts, I doubt they'll make it the whole season. It'd be awesome if they stayed healthy, but we've had 3 starting QB's for at least the last 5 seasons, maybe longer.

I'm with you on this. Nebraska has a lot of pieces, but it remains to be seen how Nebraska can move the football without the QB run game. Nebraska's offense for most of the last 5 years has been option football - with the exception being Casey Thompson chucking the ball to Trey Palmer.

The RBs are all serviceable but not amazing. The OL was actually a very improved unit last year but still had moments of struggling. And our WR room is largely unknown -- we didn't have the QB to throw WRs the ball to see what they can actually do. 

All of this doesn't mean that Nebraska is going to be bad on offense. But let's not act like there aren't questions to how effective they will be, particularly with Satterfield calling plays... who struggled to say the least. 

6 hours ago, Decked said:

3 star galore. They’ve had some limited traction with the higher rated fellas. They need to win this year. Bowl game. 

It's a process.

I do think Rhule's strategy could pay dividends - keeping a very large roster that eventually becomes 4 and 5 year seniors is something Nebraska can do. 

Supplementing 4* talent - even if limited - can be effective with an older, experienced roster. Can Nebraska build and maintain that roster in the era of the transfer portal? It's a risky strategy, but with Nebraska's limited recruiting base it may be the only strategy that can mitigate the Blue Chip gap.

5 hours ago, Loebarth said:

Now I know he's only a 3 star (little poke @Dr. Strangelove cause he hates 3* recruiting) but 40 D1 offers.. Is there an expectation of a earning 4th star? Seems there was some hype around this kid both locally and nationally. Someone above (or maybe some journalist) stated he's body ready more than most freshmen TE prospects which kind of shocked me as I've always thought soft hands and quick feet were essential TE attributes more so than height/weight ratio. How wrong am I?

I don't hate 3* players. 

It's not a good strategy to have your recruiting class be 3/4ths of them.

17 minutes ago, commando said:

mafia attorneys defend their bosses 

The primary difference being that, in this instance, it sets a precedent for authoritarianism. 

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

Do you even understand what a defense attorney does?  
 

Does this mean the argument is going to win?  Hopefully not, but that is their job when they take the job. 

See above. Congrats on creating this. Wish I could say that it was difficult to see coming and that Trump really veered off course, but you know, decades of being a piece of s#!t kind of eliminates that excuse. 

On 4/23/2024 at 12:43 PM, Mavric said:

 

Hopefully they land some talent. This recruiting class is lacking blue chip talent.

4 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Isn’t it his lawyers job to make these arguments on his behalf?  Even if they end of losing said arguments.  

At a certain point, shouldn't a person look themselves in the mirror and say "wow, I'm actually going to step in front of SCOTUS and say that attempting a coup attempt, ordering the military to commit a coup, or assassinating a political rival should be allowed by Presidential immunity. Maybe this entire political movement is f#&%ing stupid, enabled by the lowest dredges of society, and I probably shouldn't be doing this"

I realize looking into the mirror and asking difficult questions is kind of difficult for a certain voter who enabled all this, but lets be honest here - Trump is a catastrophic idiot enabled by elements of society who cheer his anti-American authoritarianism on because it OwNs teH LiBs. 

33 minutes ago, Fru said:

ONE bad man? Dude. C’mon.

It has a lot more to do with millions of voters who enable his behavior in the name of moronic culture war nonsense.

Trump is probably going to be found to be immune from prosecution for trying to overthrow Democracy, won't end up in jail, and because the average voter is stupid beyond comprehension, he's likely to win in November.

8 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Yeah...

 

It was Trump -125 and Biden at +110 (I think) and then it went to -110 for both.  Then -125 for Trump and now -120 and -110

 

With RFK jr getting the +3000

All of that seems reasonable, Trump has a 55%-60% chance to win. Those odds seem correct.

5 minutes ago, teachercd said:

DT -120

JB -110

Any other:  +3000

So an election that's essentially a toss-up with Trump as a slight favorite? Honestly this seems pretty accurate. 

56 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Trump odds fell again today on betting my betting site.

What are the odds?

I may have to get in on this action.