Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

CW, you need a new play.  Your playbook is ineffective my friend.

your now days old diatribe against POTUS is not changing any minds.  You act like him holding a bible is unique to him.  Like no other politicians do and say things politically based lol.  Like You think Biden wearing a mask is because he thinks masks make sense.  Or that a single word that comes out of his mouth are his personal beliefs.  Or the fact that he FINALLY, mildly, denounced the rioting in our cities is because he is against it, and not because his CNN and other consultants warned him that their data suggests this issue is important to many swing voters and is starting to move against him.  Please. 

The playbook of criticism, calling anyone who disagrees a racist, second guessing, obstructing and dividing needs a refresh.  Like,  Coming up with a single position on the issues of the day and how you would handle it. 

Assume your talking to those of us who can’t stand POTUS as your starting point, and tell us why the other side is viable choice.

I was going to post the dozens of twitter videos from just last night showing more mob violence, attacking law enforcement, etc...but you know it is out there in spades ( its what OAF) and you like to call progress.  Mobs of people surrounding outdoor diners and forcing them through fear to join in the chants of “ white silence is violence” and getting inches from the face of those who don’t comply (without a mask no less) and screaming at the top of your lungs.

and no cop outs here....don’t write off that this is what is going on or I will post the videos, and they are from twitter, not any news agency.

How many politicians use the Bible as a prop without being able to cite a single verse, other than to say that they really like "two Corinthians"?

I'm not saying that anyone who disagrees is a racist.  Where are you getting that?  I am saying that Trump appeals to racists and non-racists.  And his appeal to racists is not an accident.

Biden is a viable choice because he will stay between the lines of constitutional norms.  His policies will be bad for America, but no worse than Trump's.  Just bad in different ways.  He won't resemble someone who thinks he has dictatorial powers because he's in the White House.  He won't talk (or have his surrogates talk) about a 3rd term for himself.  Same thing about his face being put on Mount Rushmore.  He won't use the White House as a prop for events that are purely partisan.  He will at least simulate being the president of the entire country.  And the Republican Party may recover some guts and integrity being back in the minority, which is what its behavior over the last 3-1/2 years will have earned.

When have I copped out by saying that these riots are not going on?  They are going on.  They are terrible.  They should be stopped.  But first, mayors should enforce the law.  That means cracking down on rioters just like it means cracking down on bad cops.  Governors should enforce the law, even if that means offending some interest groups that support them.  The President should enforce federal laws.  The president should not send in the U.S. Army or federalized National Guardsmen against the requests of local authorities unless federal laws are being broken and not enforced (as was the case in 1957 when Ike sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock to enforce the Brown v. Board ruling).  Is that the case here?  Maybe it is, but I'm not sure what federal laws those would be.  If no federal laws are being broken, then the federal troops should stay out unless invited.

If blue-city mayors and blue-state governors aren't willing to enforce the law, then people should vote with their feet, as Badge is doing.  That's what's so great about American federalism.  If you don't like what your state is doing, there are 49 others to choose from, and you can still be a loyal, red-blooded American.  Without federal intervention.

Do we believe in states' rights?  Do we believe in a federal government that limits itself to its Constitutional powers?  Or do we only believe in those things for red states when the "blue" president does something we don't like?

Very true, great post.

And their hypocrisy only grows on this issue...they toss all other issues out the window to end abortions (ideally, in their minds), just so those babies born largely to the poor and to brown and black mothers can be ignored.  They're quite literally advocating for growing the impoverished. 

If I took it a step further, it's as if they're trying to create a servant class of American citizens.  You know, to replace those illegal aliens who do the jobs no one else wants.  But that's merely conjecture on my part.  Silly, I'm sure.

If pro-lifers were making an exception for black and brown abortions, what would you say then?  I doubt that you would be praising them for preventing more black and brown people from lives of servility.
You've cleverly rigged the terms of the debate so that you get to win either way.

Do you think that a baby is a human being at some point prior to the doctor slapping its bottom?
Partial-birth abortion is rare, and babies surviving the partial-birth abortion only to be left to die in the sink is even rarer.  But they happen.  That are at the very limit of what "pro-choice" means.  But they happen.
Do you support those measures?
I will stipulate that there are hard questions for pro-lifers like me to answer, and that for some of those questions I don't have good answers.

I think a baby is a human being at every point - from sperm and egg to butt slapping and every stage in between.  To me, life doesn't begin at conception - it began far before that.  The "pro-choice" and "pro-life" labels are, to me, an arbitrary decision on where we choose to recognize the legals rights of a person and choose to end some legal rights of the mother.  While conception and birth are the obvious bright line rules, they are hardly the only points.  Roe v. Wade famously talked about rights more or less gradually changing as the child grew in the womb.  The bright line rule could even be before conception.

In any event, to me, a bright line rule saying birth is the trigger is the least evil and most good result, while also acknowledging that you will run into some evil situations under that rule.

Decent list, but would this appease the protesters?

I doubt it, but it would be something to offer.
Instead of what we have - burfle

Sam:

Democracy and Republic are not synonyms.  They are not almost synonyms.  They are two different things.
A democracy focuses on people making the laws.  The greater percentage of the people who vote, the more democratic a democracy is.  The classical Athenian democracy is not one we would consider very democratic at all, as only a small minority of people were able to vote.  Voter turnout was often high, though.
A monarchy could be a democracy.  Great Britain has one.
A republic focuses on representatives of the people making the laws for them.  (And there not being a monarch.)  It is not necessary (in a republic) that the people directly elect those representatives.  The representatives could be chosen in a number of ways.  The state could put the office up for bid, and the highest bidder would win.  (A nice addendum would be that he would have to help fund the government with his personal wealth.)  They could be chosen by lot, or, today, by random generation of SSANs.  They could be chosen by the leaders of the polity one echelon below the offices in question.  They could be chosen by election, with the lowest vote-getters "winning."
You could have a republic that was very democratic or you could have one that is not recognizably democratic at all.
We are a republic that is quite democratic.  ("A democracy in a republic," as I remember from some 6th-grade patriotic celebration.)  Some would like it to be more democratic.  Others, not so much.
I think that we would not go wrong if we did not equate "democratic" and "good."  (Just as I think we would not go wrong if we did not equate "Republican" or "Democrat" with "good.")  Democracies have produced some pretty bad results, like electing Adolf Hitler to power in 1933.  And electing the pathetic French leaders whom he conquered so easily in 1940.

Yes - democracy and republic are not synonyms. But they are also not antonyms.  A democracy suggest people vote for their government, and a republic suggests representatives are in the government.  We obviously live in a democracy and we obviously live in a republic.  That's why Trump's election, while legal, is offensive to both.  He wasn't elected democratically, as he lost the vote.  He also wasn't elected by via republicanism - no elected delegate decided he was the best man for the job.  All of his electoral voted were tied to winner takes all state votes.  It's a system that is truly the worst of both worlds.

Anyways, I'm a believer in people being able to participate in their governance, and argument that people shouldn't get to vote because we don't live in a democracy get scoffed at by me.  I'm very sanguine on how much elected officials choose senators and presidents v. directly by the people.  My main goal is that elected people are actually elected by the people and not by geographic tricks or efforts to keep people from participating.

LOL
A wide swath of people who would bestow, "he was a good Christian man" on someone as a compliment are about to vote Donald Trump for president a second time.

The absolute nicest thing I can say about them is that I've got to assume they simply don't know what the word 'hypocrite' means.  For if they allow a single issue to toss all of their piousness out the window, they are indeed in need of saving. 

It's disgusting.

Every human being who advocates good is a hypocrite, for he will never be able always to live up to his own standards.
Evangelicals voting for Trump are hypocrites.  You're a hypocrite.  I'm a hypocrite.  We've all got feet of clay.
Evil people who advocate evil are not hypocrites.

320:
Who sent in the HPD?  The red governor or the blue mayor?  I'll bet it was the mayor.
Which is an illustration of why it's not just red=good, blue=bad.

The Mayor sent in the cops very quickly

what can I say he put the citizens first and is held in high reguard because of it

Incidentally the Governor has made it pretty clear what he expects from the Mayors of Texas cities concerning riots