Toomuchpreworkout

Mac Jones had objectively a better season, at least from a statistical standpoint. He's not in the same league as Lawrence when it comes to overall talent and NFL potential though.

And Lawrence's backups had another 1,000 yards passing and 7 TD's in his absence. If we assumed Lawrence played those games and had similar numbers, the stat advantage by Mac Jones wouldn't be that crazy anymore (not to mention how much better Jones' supporting cast is too).

Let's see....we were talking about if Ohio State was an inconsistent team this season, not whatever it is you're talking about?

Lol I mean UGA and A&M’s are good, but it’s not the craziest take ever lol. Running the ball behind that line is ND’s only Shot at making this not a total blowout.

That article is even less valuable than the first one. I already said the value of the scholarship is what it costs for the school to provide it, that’s it. Those additional “perks” are not actually perks; they are built into the cost of attending the school. Playing for Penn State provides you exposure for the NFL in the same general way that attending Penn State as a regular student provides you exposure to the job market. That’s the “benefit“ of going there, but it’s not really a benefit because it is literally built in the cost of attendance; it’s a bargained-for-exchange. You pay (or receive a scholarship), and you get things in return. The difference with athletes though is that they ALSO generate hundreds of millions of dollars for the university ON TOP OF THAT. The exchange isn’t equal at all.

The only fact you need to know is that athletes were receiving athletic scholarships long before multi-billion dollar TV deals were a thing. Now that multi-billion dollar TV deals ARE a thing, everyone has gotten some of that money EXCEPT the players. Considering athletic scholarships existed long before schools were making absurd profits in football/basketball, either the scholarships dont actually cost the college much to give out or the colleges receive something in return (other than absurd profits) for having sports teams. Either way, the absurd profits are on top of all of that.

Lol young people want to work, they just want the fair wages and reasonable cost of college that their parents enjoyed.

My bad, substitute "hate" with "laugh at" from your original comment and the point still stands lol. The next generation is slightly more conservative than the prior one, but they also universally agree on issues like climate change and legalizing weed. And after they graduate from Zoom high school, look at the price of college, and enter a subpar economy, they'll want serious student loan reform and be more in favor of UBI. The Republican Party always does bad with the young generation, so they'll need to adapt based on those issues.

This is just stupid.

The majority of black people already don't identify as liberal and the majority of black people already live in suburban/rural areas, yet they still vote blue 90% of the time. What else could the Republican Party possibly do to change that dynamic, especially in the short-term?

Muslims are a tiny fraction of the population. You make a better point about Hispanics, so I guess a less divisive Republican could theoretically make some gains there.

The socialist stuff is extremely overblown. You don't live in the Midwest, and it shows. Moderates in the Midwest don't buy that shite. Sure, they're not fans of AOC, but they don't actually think your run-of-the-mill establishment Dem is a trojan horse for socialist policies. However, they do buy the idea that the Democratic Party is starting to abandon the working class as a whole. Regardless, some rust belt swing states could theoretically trend red, but it would just be offset because states like Texas and Georgia are trending blue.

I didn't state my stance; I stated a fact that abortion is not explicitly mentioned in the bible. Can it be inferred? For a lot of people, yes it can. I assume you believe that it is a grave sin, and that you can point to a variety of passages of scripture (and other factors, such as historical practice) that supports your view. Most Christians share that view too, and have throughout history. I'm not here to change your mind on that. I was merely telling you that there are multiple Christian denominations that support the right to abortion (not merely the believers, but literally the official position of those denominations).

I know devout Christians of a variety of denominations, including people in the Episcopal Church that oppose abortion. Do you believe that they think their Church is not Christian? I mean, if they did, don't you think they'd join a different church? Maybe they're confused? Who knows.

And your pacifist example is a false equivalence. Based on what you said, you're talking about starting a religion that is literally only pacifist in name. What would your source of authority be in your situation? Churches such as the Episcopal Church and Presbyterian Church have been around for over 200 years and have over a million members.

Explain the Episcopal Church then.
LINK

Abortion isn't mentioned in the bible, and we're only talking about the Catholic church here, not Christianity as a whole. There are other Christian denominations where abortion rights are supported, so it definitely isn't impossible to support abortion and be a Christian at the same time.