TheColonyEagle

I'm not sure that article does what it's supposed to do. It says facts don't back up Trumps rhetoric then it lists facts that basically do. It seems "infested" is the big sticking point. Elijah Cummings himself described Baltimore as "drug infested" several years ago. But even more...it shows how the rich in his district are living well while the poor are not. That's a huge divide. All under Rep Cummings leadership. That article paints a picture of something he's supposed to be against. He's been representing the people of his district for a long time. If the rich white people are happy with him and keep voting him in....and the poor black folks of Baltimore keep getting screwed...seems that Rep. Cummings is part of the problem when it comes to the issues of a large part of his district. So Rep. Cummings can keep taking his big donations from the unions while telling half of his constituency whose fault it is they're poor. But at some point he has to offer a solution right? If he can't, what's he doing for his $200K salary? He's only been their representative for 20+ years. Interesting fact: Baltimore's murder rate is double the rate of Guatemala....a country that many anti Trump folks just said was too dangerous for people to seek asylum. But maybe there's a silver lining here for a large part of Baltimore. The people that have ignored them for years all the sudden care about them...I can't help but think they're happy people may actually listen to them now. https://ballotpedia.org/Elijah_Cummings The latest figures put his net worth at $1.3 million. Not bad for a public employee....he's done well for himself. I think that ^ is the swamp Trump talks about. The last paragraph of the article below cannot sum up today's views any better. (underline and italics added for emphasis) Donald Trump may be the one to use offensive language to talk about Baltimore, but as we saw in the last election, many people in Maryland, including some county executives and newspaper editorial board members, object to racist rhetoric but get mighty uncomfortable when a gubernatorial candidate says he’ll change the state’s racist policies of the past. Better to have a popular, “bipartisan” governor who will quietly, politely, genteelly, drain the city instead. https://ggwash.org/view/73198/trump-baltimore-racist-hogan-politicians Twitter is not the real world...

Seems in life (corp America definitely included) confidence gets you further than substance...

"Trump was, once again, blustering about a subject he didn’t understand, while insisting that he knew it better than anyone else." Now that ^ I will agree with

I've never posted a Prager U video on here... And come on man.... I think you're honest enough to know that the Charlottesville "fine people" controversy has been debunked multiple times. By you know....anyone that listened to the words that came out of his mouth. “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.” I'm really not sure how he could be any clearer....he said that in the same press conference about 2 minutes after he said "fine people" That one ranks up there with "Muslim ban." If the press says it enough maybe it will become true?

I think we've established that Trump handles criticism like a 4 year old. She constantly attacks him so like a 4 year old he throws his toy at her. That's what he was doing. He throws his toys at everyone that criticizes him.

Scott Adams has an interesting theory on how we view Trump. https://www.scottadamssays.com/2017/02/12/good-example-of-our-two-movie-reality/

So if Omar was a white woman from Germany and Germany was a war torn country like Somalia. And she escaped and came here and then constantly attacked Trump....do we think Trump would leave her alone because of the color of her skin? He wouldn’t say “if you hate it here so much go back to Germany and fix them?” (I notice the narrative always leaves off “.....and fix them” that he said at the end) I don’t think you can honestly say Trump wouldn’t say the exact same thing to someone from another country that was doing what she was. Regardless of their race. Because he’s an immature defensive baby. My point is he’s an A-Hole to EVERYONE. And.....I guess Rand Paul is a racist too. He just offered to buy Omar a ticket back to Somalia so she’ll “appreciate America”

I will say the one thing in the article I didn’t agree with is what you said. I don’t believe EVERYONE on the left thinks ALL Trump supporters are racist. That is a big part of the narrative though put out by the media. But I don’t believe it. I was more interested in his “test” I think that it’s more of an ideological disagreement between the left and right that gets labeled as racism. Even with Trump. He can attack Jerry Brown or Adam Schiff or Chuck Schumer and it’s “meh he’s just a jerk” but when he attacks Elijah Cummings or AOC or Omar it’s ONLY because he’s racist. Seems he attacks everyone on the left but his motives get questioned when he attacks certain people. Surely we can see the double standard? And I’m not a big Trump supporter by the way. I honestly try to look at things objectively.

So what about his point did you disagree with?

Interesting article: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/trump-supporters-white-conservatives-racism-charge/ I would be curious to know an opposing viewpoint on it.

If this tells you how Jamario was thought of when we recruited him...... https://247sports.com/college/north-texas/Sport/Football/AllTimeRecruits/

this question of "who is our rival" comes up a lot. No UTSA is not our rival. If a school that's only been around a few year is our rival...that's sad. Rivals have to develop naturally over time. I'll say this....it seems the past few years, our game vs La Tech has had conference implications....that is a recipe for a developing rivalry. This season should be no different

So it seems we're setting the bar here of what is acceptable from a moral standpoint. Somewhere below a rude tweet up to a filmed rape? Your stretch there is kind of moot because a rapist wouldn't be a leader because they would be in prison. (I mean....we've never elected a rapist anyway right?) So as for morality coming from experience and interaction within societies? Who says? Who is the arbiter of all things moral that says that's the standard? If morality comes from experience and interaction....whose experience and interaction within society does it come form? Would you like me to dictate to you a morality based on MY experience and interaction within society? I'm guessing you would have a problem with that. I sure don't want you dictating to me because evidently, if I don't think like you then I'm a bad person? A racist? I support racism? That's the whole point of this view on subjective morality. It delves us into chaos. It's like a quarterback competition...when you have 3 QBs you have no QBs. (Boom! Sports!) And the snake I saw eating another snake on the internet the other day didn't seem to be very moral or concerned with his fellow snake to me. He just looked hungry. I'll pose this to you. What is the moral standard you think we should hold our elected officials to? Where is the line? Is there an objective line we can all agree on? Or is it just what you personally think everyone should think? That's an honest question. I'm curious what you think. I can't figure out if you're just trolling. The title of your thread is such a hot button issue...part of me thinks you put it here just to stir it up. If you're serious, debates like this are good...I learn from them. But in my experience, most people shut them down.

Mostly pretty fair comments. Except for the one that said the crowd was predominantly UH fans in 2011. That’s a bit ridiculous.

I just wanted to make sure I didn't jump to a conclusion and make an assumption on what he was saying....I think I know but wanted to be clear. I think what he's saying really falls under what I've read a lot. "How can a Christian vote for Donald Trump?" This is a very popular sentiment today. The logic being "Christians are supposed to be about morals and Donald Trump is immoral. So therefore: A Christian shouldn't vote for someone that is immoral." I think the fallacy in this line of thinking comes from a misunderstanding of Christianity and their view on morality. More specifically: where do morals come from and is there such thing as a moral person? To a Christian, morals come from an objective, unwavering absolute truth: the word of God presented in the Bible. A Christian's world view is shaped by the Bible, not what the Christian thinks. That's an important distinction. Objective world view vs Subjective world view. The tricky part comes when the Christian FAILS to uphold this standard. And here's another absolute truth, 100% of people, including 100% of Christians fail. Whether it's a preacher that has an affair, gets caught stealing money, a politician that "cloaks himself in the Bible" that gets caught in a bribery scandal, a Christian that lies, cheats on his taxes, dodges the draft, gets married 3 times, judges others, is a massive hypocrite...it's a guarantee. When it comes to the biblical standard of morals...of a "good person," the bible says there is no such thing as a good person. They don't exist. As for biblical standards of "good" there's not one human being on this planet that is good. True Christians know this. So if the expectation is that a Christian needs to wait on a "good person" to run for office....they'll be waiting until Jesus returns and gets on the ballot (as an independent...I assure you). Because outside of one person in history, there is no such thing as a good and moral person when it comes to Biblical standards. It's the central reason for Jesus Christ ever being on this earth. So knowing that...the question then becomes to anyone that doesn't have that world view: "What is a good person? What is a moral person? Where do morals come from?" Without an objective, singular consistent place to go to define morals....the only place left to define morals.....is the individual. Here's where it becomes tricky. This is where truth becomes subjective and crowd sourced. This is where a Christian might say: "there's no such thing as a moral person" and someone could say "yeah but Donald Trump is a real scoundrel." Ok...so where's the list of things we'll permit from a leader. What is better than others? Once the person hits 10 on the scoundrel list...then they're disqualified? Maybe 8? Who decides the standard? Now person A with one view of what is good has one set of expectations for a leader and person B with another view has a different set. What one person sees as immoral, another person doesn't have a problem with. There's no logic in this scenario.....it's chaotic. "You do you" Ok, that's fine and all but who is right? How do you know? I can decide what's moral for me...but then when that disagrees with what someone else thinks is moral for them..there's no standard. It's why I always marvel at the "moral superiority" charge. You can't be more "morally superior" than getting your morals from your own view on things vs from a book you didn't write. So the comment: "How can a Christian vote for Donald Trump?" doesn't make sense to a true Christian. Christians aren't afraid of "bad people." Because we're all bad people. To see things from a Christian world view is to see a BIG PICTURE. And no...I didn't think all this up on my own.....it came from a book I didn't write.

The challenge I see in today's political boxing matches...is the jump to knowing the motives behind what someone says. And this goes for both sides (right and left) So to this particular tweet from the president.... I lived in Birmingham for a while. I'm from Texas. If I had told the same group of people over and over: "man the humidity sucks here" "the Mexican food is terrible...ya'll need better choices" "I can't believe it costs $800 for vehicle registration...it should be $75" "The water department is a joke here...you should have a better option" "Hey guy I keep telling this to...you're a real a**hole by the way and not nearly as good a person as me." over and over and over and over..... The logical reply to me may be from that local that is sick of hearing me complain and sick of being called an a**hole: "dude...if you're so miserable here...why don't you go back to Texas if it's so great" There is ZERO in that statement that has anything to do with race. So the trick is you have to have a predetermined opinion about the person from Birmingham that said that and you have to just know (without really knowing but think you know) the motives behind his statement. If I already think that guy is racist because all my friends tell me he's a racist then it really doesn't matter what he says...I will always come into the situation from the point of view that the guy is racist.

So what is the principle they're trading?

He wasn't happy.... Did Thulen ever correct himself? *edit* I just saw he did....

This could be the toughest D we’ve faced with Fine. Since Florida his freshman year? We can’t be predictable. Gonna have to have a game plan. Catch them off guard. The whole point of an offense like ours is to put the ball where they ain’t. We’re gonna have to put the ball where they ain’t.

Agree to a point. But that defense has been touted for 2-3 years. Last time we went to Hattiesburg, it’s all we heard about and then we put it on them fairly well.

good stuff Brett. Man...Bill Clark is under a LOT of pressure this year. He lost so many players and he's about to come back down to earth and have to follow the rules like everyone else. If he went 6-6 and then next year slid to 5-7 or something....that would be bad and it's certainly possible. He's making loads of money and they're trying to build a new stadium in a state that fights them at every turn and has no use for them. Their rise is a little bit of smoke and mirrors. People got so caught up in the good story of them coming back, they forgot how bad they were before they shut their program down. Big pressure the next couple of years. They have to keep winning and building support. The latter is not easy there.

C-USA Media Members Predicted Order of Finish WEST DIVISION North Texas (20) Southern Miss (4) Louisiana Tech UAB (2) UTSA Rice UTEP EAST DIVISION Marshall (14) FIU (9) Florida Atlantic (3) Middle Tennessee WKU Old Dominion Charlotte Southern Miss is getting a lot of love...but I think it's pretty right on. I think they nailed the east. Tough schedule, we play USM and LaTech on the road....

That's a 100% objective truth

I've been following the media days on twitter and that is arguably the #1 subject at Big 12 and SEC media days...scheduling more P5s They are going to stop scheduling G5s. I saw another article about some of the bowls' contracts coming up and P5s are wanting to replace G5 teams with P5 teams. It's picking up momentum