RedDenver

d

Kudos for probably the most mature post in P&R forum. Maybe the whole board.

I'm going with 8-4 and 2nd in the west despite the urge to predict better. I think we'll be a dangerous team that manages to lose some games we should win.

g

That's a good point.

And it did! Just ask "Run the damn ball" guy.

I strongly disagree with this sentiment. If that were the case, then we'd have never defeated the Nazis, accepted our own immigrant ancestors, given aid to other countries, etc. We owe them at least the basic rights we claim to hold so dear and self-evident.

I agree that's very likely. It'll be interesting to see which people think they are in which group. Various estimates I've seen put the annual income for starting to pay more for Bernie's policies around $80k-$120k, but how people think they'll be affected doesn't always align with the data. And then there are people who will vote against their own personal economic interest for one reason or another. For example, I'm supporting Bernie even though it won't directly help me monetarily.

Is Alabama out of the dominant teams argument considering they just s#!t the bed and lost by 28? Nobody is saying anything about Michigan being dominant, and whether people want them to be good or not has nothing to do with the argument of dominant teams. And what does "the ACC is weak" have anything to do with Clemson sticking it to Alabama? Since Alabama last won something relevant 3 years ago, should they be out like tOSU?

They aren't even interfering with the government's operations, so I have trouble putting it anywhere on the "treason scale". I wouldn't even consider it a "betrayal" of this country either as no one has been betrayed. Like I said before, it's a simple case of civil disobedience. No one was harmed, no violence was threatened.

Interesting. So you don't think people will vote based on their own experience of the economy?

Really? That seems like a complete overreaction. Treason is reserved for betraying the US to a foreign power that the US is at war with. I don't agree with replacing the US flag with the Mexican flag, but it's a minor case of civil disobedience at worst.

That's not what I asked. Does your opinion about the strength of the economy change knowing how many Americans are struggling?

As others have pointed out, there's absolutely no "take over" in the bill being proposed. So now you're in favor of the California bill?

b

Does your opinion about the strength of the economy change knowing how many Americans are struggling?

Why do you have such a strong bias against tOSU? It's a weird hill to die on considering everyone is agreeing with you that Clemson and Alabama are better than tOSU.

Why is it ok for a private entity to interfere in private transactions but not the government? Additionally, why is government institutions (like public universities) setting up a private entity in order to regulate private transactions somehow better than the government doing it directly? I get that you're trying to draw a distinction between public and private laws and regulations, but to me it's just poe-tay-toe/poe-tah-toe.

Couldn't the recruits simply take the money and still go wherever they wanted? First, the government is involved in every transaction between people because that's what society actually wants. Why do you think contracts and agreements have any recourse to be enforced? It'd be anarchy if the government didn't set the laws and rules by which people could transact. Second, it's contradictory for you to want the NCAA to intervene in private transactions and not the government. Plus the NCAA is run by universities, many of which are government institutions. Most universities are not private companies - that's a very big difference. And no one is saying that Twitter and Facebook are exempt from laws about paying their employees, which is what the NCAA is doing.

If we're comparing the quality of governance/regulation by the NCAA and the US government, I'll take the US government every time. I support paying college athletes, including for likeness, ever since the money coming in has exploded into the billions.

This post doesn't have anything to do with my post that you're quoting. I was showing you that the economy isn't good for everyone. Sanders wouldn't win if income inequality was all he was talking about, but he's got other platforms like healthcare and a whole bunch of policy proposals as well.

Bernie's anti-endorsement list is great: https://berniesanders.com/anti-endorsements/

a