Guy Chamberlin

2 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I would agree with everything you just said yet wouldn’t call it a civil war.  I would also suggest that the left will go bats#!t crazy upon the off chance Trump actually wins and the new protests by the Left will be deadlier and more costly than the BLM summer of madness. 

 

No civil war love for the people who have promised a civil war if Trump isn't elected? Having already proved their willingness? Sure about that? And no blame on Trump should he execute the vengeance he's promised? Would standing against Trump be madness, or just the opposite? Could have sworn you agreed the man was unhinged.

 

Oh ok.  Sorry.  Your carefully worded post makes it sound so.  

 

The part where I'm clearly worried and you're clearly not?

3 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

 

 

Are you trying to say we don’t REALLY need to worry about a coming civil war because we already are in one?   Geeee thanks Joe

No. Not at all. How do you pull that out the post? What's f#&%ing wrong with you?  

5 hours ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

 

 

But, in all honesty, the chances of a Civil War are 0% for a variety of reasons.

If we can agree to use lower cap civil war -- partisan opposition intense enough to spur physical face-offs and violence for months or years -- I'd put it at a solid 22%.  That's a reasonable number based on my hunch that scenarios like J6 and the Gaza protests could be made broader and nastier with the right players stoking the fires. Not so hard to imagine.

The apathetic majority will still be able to watch this on TV and cluck about it on Facebook.

I think it's pretty generous of me to give things a 78% chance of not escalating. Since 2015 I've been quite wrong about what could never happen in the United States. What we are considering status quo in 2024 is real boil-the-frog s#!t. 

3 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

 

Do you mean like campuses having to go to remote learning and cancelling graduations because of uprisings?   Well now that you mention it…..that seems to be happening now with good old Joe.  
 

 

Why do you think I chose that example? 

Trying to make this easy for you, Arch.

14 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

There certainly is a scenario in a civil war where 10% of the population isn’t killed.  By your account, we’ve been in a constant civil war ever since the two party system became main stream.  
 

Is an actual civil war going to happen after this election?  NO. 
 

Will Donald Trump protest a close election loss?  Most likely.  
 

Will Donald Trump win his protest of said close election loss.  NOPE

 

Will people get mad and their feels hurt about the election if it’s close?  YEP

 

Will it cause a civil war?  NOPE

 

The country has a better chance of spending its way into oblivion sooner than any civil war will happen.  

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. 

36 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Usually a civil war isn’t citizens throwing daisy’s at each other

 

Throughout history, Civil Wars are quite deadly.  One would assume the 2025-202…one will be much the same.  But I’m  guessing you think our coming civil war will just be some states sitting around playing a modified board game of Risk to see who controls America? 

Why the f#&% would you think that? Where does this even come from? I went to the trouble of using simple words and concepts you might understand, and politely referred to the previous post that anticipated and answered your weirdass Archy deflection, including the bloodless civil war we're currently experiencing.. 

So answer the question: do you think there's a civil war scenario that might land somewhere between throwing daisies at each other (WTF?) and the deadliest war in U.S. history?  

It's looks likely that we will enter Round Two of the NBA playoffs without Steph Curry, LeBron James, Kevin Durant, or Giannis Antentamkoumpo. Without Damian Lillard, Jimmy Butler, Anthony Davis, Devin Booker, Chris Paul or Joel Embid. God willing without James Harden or Russell Westbrook. I'm already used to not seeing Kawhi Leonard and Zion Williamson. 

Really feels like a changing of the guard and I'm cool with it. Some really exciting players having their playoff moments. 

3 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Who is a General Strawdog?  
 

The guy who thinks a reference to civil war has to meet the standard of the bloodiest war in U.S. history or it doesn't count. 

49 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Yes, over 150 years ago one did happen.   And at one point Kansas was a shallow sea.  
 

If that’s the standard, Guess I better get ocean flood insurance.

 

@teachercd what does your sports book have on the odds of a 2025 Civil War?  Is it worth a bet.  It has happened before I’m told so might want to put some dough on it.  
 

Seriously though.   America IS NOT going to have a civil war based on the 2024 election.   You guys (and gals) already have enough stuff bothering you, please don’t huff and puff about that one.  

Are you sure there's not a scenario that might fall somewhere between "nothing to worry about" and Gettysburg bloodbath, General Robert E. Strawdog?

But now that you mention it,  QAnon Shaman was better at invading the U.S. Capitol than the Confederate Army.  

3 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

A civil war in the vein of the 1860’s or a civil war of each side barking at each other, like what we’ve had for decades upon decades?   One makes sense, the other does not.   I’ll let each individual choose on their own. 

Read my post again, where I clearly addressed all this, including a funny Ken Burns joke. 

16 hours ago, admo said:

They get a cut (NFL) if worn.  They get another cut (bigger) if players switch to one of the new 6 helmets they rolling out this year.

 

 

No s#!t? So who exactly is driving the Guardian Cap bus?

I'd imagine the NFL doling out the incentives, not receiving them. Nobody said they didn't look really stupid.

It's kinda like when Rick Barry was shooting underhand free throws and setting the record for accuracy. He claimed he could get the worst free-throw shooter to double their percentage by using the simple two-handed granny shot. Even with that incentive, no other player wanted to look that uncool. 

https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=568821e4bd74bee9&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS1064US1065&sxsrf=ACQVn08VwTtnYm2pVigqrWvrU0_3cbo_sQ:1714498127986&q=rick+barry+underhand+free+throw&tbm=vid&source=lnms&prmd=vinsbmtz&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwigrIufu-qFAxUsRDABHXj1AUIQ0pQJegQICBAB&biw=2880&bih=1242&dpr=1#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:0f4483ea,vid:qy8qiFkhRZo,st:0

4 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Gotcha.  That makes sense.  

Actually I was commenting on the larger civil war that would embroil America, per the post I followed with. It also makes sense. 

5 minutes ago, commando said:

no one is saying the pro hamas folks have 2 functioning brain cells to rub together.

But some people are equating a large contingent of pro-Palestinian Americans with a tiny contingent pro-Hamas Americans. And dedicating 98% of the Israel conversation to  American college protests rather than what's actually happening in Gaza. Guess that's just how the pro-Benji Bros roll.   

How will the protestors vote? Hard to say. It's a spectrum, like everything else. The issue is with U.S. supplying money and arms to Israel in the wake of a horrific terrorist attack that has since been used to kill tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians in a ground offensive that the adult and moderate diplomatic experts consider a move by Netanyahu to simply takeover Gaza as he always intended, against longstanding treaties and directives dating back across multiple American administrations and involving some delicate international alliances. Since this is happening on Biden's watch and concerns Biden's immediate actions, the protestors are taking on Biden. Whether they think the situation would get worse under Trump is a call they can make in November.

The most virulent activists you see quoted are highly unlikely to vote for Biden. They didn't vote for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or John Kerry either. These are the people who voted for Green candidates like Jill Stein, or possible the handful of people who voted for an actual Socialist Party candidate, or like some of their rightwing counterparts simply won't vote. I don't like single-issue voting, and I think Gaza has taken that role for some, including the large muslim population in swing state Michigan. But the lack of enthusiasm for Biden among young voters is the larger concern, and it pre-dates October 7. 

20 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

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

I don't know if actual sabers will be drawn, or if Ken Burns will do a documentary on it, but a Donald Trump win is likely to spark a reconstruction of democracy to fit Trump, along with the partisan revenge he has literally promised. That includes withholding federal funds to blue states, and fully weaponizing a Justice Department some already considers a partisan weapon. 

A Donald Trump loss will -- again, as promised -- launch an election denial scenario that will be more angry and organized than the last one. I'm not sure which result would get uglier, but they both seem to inspire escalation and resistance. 

We are already at the bloodless version of civil war, in which Democrats and Republicans are virtually prohibited from crossing the aisle, even if the collaboration would build bridges or save puppies. And even as I made that joke, I realize a prominent Republican just bragged about killing a puppy as an example of making "tough decisions."

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

Anyone who still backs him is a traitor to America. 

Well that would include the 50% of American voters who want this even more vengeful version of Donald Trump as President.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/04/28/donald-trump-joe-biden-cnn-poll/73493459007/

I know I should listen to the wise counsel of a professional teacher, but this Biden in a Landslide narrative isn't backed by anything beyond a prayer for common sense.

Gonna be a heckuva civil war. 

I asked this in another thread, but is this the end of the second string? If you're any kind of player, or planning on any kind of college football future, are you willing to be second on the depth chart to start the season, or do you just say "eff-it, I'm outta here" until a team can, uhm "promise" you'll start? 

1 hour ago, admo said:

The guardian cap is an embarrassing look for the sport, and it looks stupid.  But, someone has to make money f#&%ing things up, as long as the NFL gets their cut. That's how it goes.

 

 

I don't know if there's an angle for the NFL to make money off the guardian cap, but they are justifiably scared of the brain injury stats curtailing participation and fueling lawsuits. 

11 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

I don’t think “Huskerboard” reports on them either way. The defections are just more fun for most of us. If you have some inbounds to report, go for it 

I didn't want to go to the trouble, or alert Google that I was seeking out Deion Sanders content, but I wondered if it was a full scale exodus based on this thread.

Looks like CU is pulling in a few guys with as good or better credentials than the guys leaving. Can't get a read on the depth, though the Buffs appear to be more reactionary than most programs. 

Are we at the point where there can be no second string? If a hotshot recruit discovers someone is ahead of him on the depth chart, does he just say ef-it, I'm outta here? 

On 4/24/2024 at 9:37 AM, Archy1221 said:

 

Joins a long history of the Pentagon trying to control the optics of their wars. It's interesting that the soldiers want to own the fact that they killed Afghan civilians in the post-bombing chaos. 

Is Colorado getting any players via the portal? Or does HuskerBoard only report the defections?

"If they tell you I fell off the bed and hung myself, I didn't."

Beyond satire. 

I am unable to watch Spring Games in terms of defense. Not sure why. If I see a RB get stuffed I never consider it a good defensive play, just a failed running play. 

I've watched a lot of Spring Games where we like the "promise shown" by a QB, but honestly Raiola looks like he's already there. Just pocket presence alone. Haven't followed all the moving pieces in the off-season, but my understanding is that we are suddenly loaded at receiver. 

Rhule was really comfortable and honest in the broadcast booth the first half, and he answered the run/pass split question by saying the Huskers will run the ball plenty this fall, but the missing piece is a better passing game, and that's why it's the priority this Spring.  

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

This has happened??  Was giving Ukraine Javelin missiles being pro-Putin?  The missiles Obama wouldn’t give.  Downplaying Russia strength in 2012, allowing a Crimea takeover..I guess BHO is pro-Putin 

I think it was pretty clear to anyone and everyone that Trump or Biden would have legally challenged the results of an extremely close election, and when those legal challenges lost, both would have left the WH which is what happened.  I know I was told by people on this board, maybe even you that Orange Man Bad wouldn’t leave the WH even if he lost.  

 

Yeah….if you consider Jan 6 a coup, we are screwed once China and Russia realize how easy it will be to take us over.   Who needs Nukes when you can get 3,000 rag tag citizens to take over Washington.  
 

I certainly got this wrong.   
 

However you feel about abortion…Roe V Wade was not settled in a lawful way.   SCOTUS correctly settled that.   Good on them.  I didn’t think they would have the guts to make the correct and hard decision.  Now it’s rightfully up to Congress to make national abortion law.   Until then, it’s up to the States as it should be when Congress hasn’t regulated it through law.   That’s kinda how our system is set up.  
 

First off, you and others constantly said she was the future of the Republican party and a current leader.  That still isn’t true.  Whatever influence you think she has, is confined to about 10 other looney members of Congress who are as looney as her.  Similar to “The Squad” on the other side.  And didn’t Marge get kicked off a committee assignment?  
 

Fun fact….The President isn’t elected by popular vote.   
 

Here’s another fun fact…The President is immune from some laws us normies must follow, so are Congresspeople.  The question for SCOTUS and what they are deciding  is when does immunity stop.  
 

 

The assertion that Trump or Biden would have handled a close election the same way is ludicrous. If we're talking checks and balances, the cornerstone of American democracy has been the peaceful transfer of power, and Donald Trump is the opposite of that. In addition to not attending the inauguration ceremonies -- unlike  disgraced popular vote winner Hillary Clinton and every other defeated candidate-- Trump has spent every waking hour spreading election falsehoods, and hailed his J6 supporters as heroes and martyrs while literally promising pardons and vengeance. Although now that you mention it, maybe Al Gore was a big pu&&y for conceding an extremely close election for the "good of the country." 

However I feel about abortion, I feel more strongly about Supreme Court candidates assuring Congress they will not seek to overturn Roe v Wade in order to secure their nomination. After which, they will very much seek to overturn Roe v Wade because each Supreme Court nominee was handed to Donald Trump on a short list by the Federalist Society, whose main criteria was the judge's willingness to overturn Roe v Wade. It's always fun to pretend it's simply about states rights. 

By "popular vote" I did not mean the the national popular vote, but the ability of those controlling the local state house to send their own slate of electors if they don't like the electors chosen by the people. That's been happening. The literal removal of checks and balances. 

However you want to dance around Donald Trump and Russia and dip back to the Obama administration for strained equivalencies, the emergence of a pro-Russia narrative among conservative media and lawmakers can be traced directly to Donald Trump standing next to Vladimir Putin and telling the world he trusted Putin over the unanimous consensus of America's 17 intelligence agencies. In addition to his attempts to weaken NATO while in office, the former President has a plan to end the war if he returns to the Presidency: just give Russia some land:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/05/trump-ukraine-secret-plan/

However you want to limit the most insane wing of Republican party to Marjorie Taylor-Greene and some ragtag extremists, they have assumed the power to make or break the Speaker of the House -- not exactly nothing. And while you may not want to call them "leadership" or even "the face" of the Republican Party, it's kinda moot if both the face and leadership of the Republican Party is the utterly bats#!t Donald Trump, doling out favoritism to the most bats#!tty loyalist, while the supposed mainstream of the party angrily rejects a Ron DeSantis or Nikki Haley lifeboat.  

Presidential immunity is an interesting dilemma, although I think most of us plebes can understand the lines you can't cross, and that trying an ex-President for his criminal civilian behavior does not threaten national security and the social order in the way trying an acting President might. But maybe if we spend enough time musing about the complexities of Presidential immunity the Supreme Court can postpone any decision that might affect the Presidential candidate who stacked it.  

Why is it so hard for you to accept that everything you believe is horribly wrong? 

• Donald Trump was exonerated and will not be making Putin-friendly decisions in office. 

• Donald Trump isn't going to fight the results of the 2020 election

• And if he does, Donald Trump isn't going to do something crazy, like instigate a violent coup.

• And if he does instigate a violent coup, the Republicans will quickly distance themselves from him. The "election hoax" rhetoric will fade to oblivion and the GOP will return to issues-based campaigning. 

• As they distance themselves from Trump, the GOP will embrace saner alternatives, like Ron DeSantis.

• Trump's Supreme Court appointees are reasonable folks who made it clear they're fine with the Roe v Wade precedent. Why are you freaking out?

• The Marjorie Taylor Greene wing will not exert any significant influence on the party itself.

• What paranoid world do you live in where Donald Trump inserts his daughter-in-law as the RNC chairwoman, and funnels the money to himself? 

• Our electoral college system held, and only a worrywort would think red state legislatures might take a lesson from 2020 and reengineer the rules to make it easier to overrule the popular vote.

• And if they do, it probably won't come into play. Because Biden is going to win so handily over Joe Biden, even MAGA will accept defeat and work together to advance this great country of ours. 

• We remain a nation of laws. It's not like the Supreme Court is going to look America in the eye and say a President is immune from the laws we citizens must follow. That's a dictatorship, man. 

• And when the guy I voted for twice promises a scorched earth, day-one dictator second term, he's just kidding to get you libs riled up. What has he ever done to make you think he'll go off the rails and take as many people as possible with him?  

4 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

That’s pretty good advice! 

Largely mitigated by the fact that so much of what the advice-giver swore would never happen, has happened.