Phillydomer

Trump supporters fail to understand context. When they decry the violence that followed upon George Floyd's murder, they fail to understand that the black community in the United States has spent the majority of its history on this land enslaved or segregated. That's not to say anyone should condone that violence, just that without acknowledging the context, there's inevitable misunderstanding. For example: Don Trump Jr is touting that his father's supporters aren't rioting the way racial justice protestors did this summer. Sure, that's mostly true. On the other hand, those supporters aren't the descendants of people who were treated as subhuman for hundreds of years. They're not at risk of extrajudicial murder with impunity, the way many black Americans are. It's about context. But it's also about empathy and goodwill. Many Trump supporters know these bits of history, but they're not generous enough to understand another man's point of view. FWIW, before I get harangued: I'm not a Democrat and I'm not a Biden supporter (just a reluctant Biden voter)

This is why these arguments are pointless. Because climate-science deniers believe absolute idiocy like this, i.e. we have to be cavemen to revert climate change. The other point I'll make here, because this post illustrates it so well, is the following: Jessemoore97 begins by denying the science, but he concludes by shrugging his shoulders and saying that to change the climate back we would have to change our way of life too much. That is to say, Jesse simultaneously denies climate science, then acknowledges it's probably true but expresses his unwillingness to combat it. It's the latter point that reveals the crux of the matter.

I love how people are content to take medications developed by scientists; to rely on technology in their everyday lives that was developed by scientists; and to generally take for granted scientific theories like evolution. But all of a sudden, there's this ONE issue where every Tom, Dick, and Harry with not a whit of scientific expertise want to question the scientists whom they trust in all other areas of their life. What's more likely, the overwhelming majority of the scientific community is wrong, or the amateurs are letting political ideology shape their viewpoint? These arguments are beyond stupid, because people who are questioning the evidence of climate change have no interest in actually weighing evidence.

Here's the thing: it's not like Kelly is winning 3 games a season. He's winning 8, 9, 10. Could a different guy nab 9, 10, 11? Sure. But unless a different guy can win a title, I'm not interested in risking a bad hire that results in the next Charlie Weis or Ty Willingham. And right now, our university is not conducive to title chasing. (It's a case of the devil you know is better than the devil you don't).

This is emblematic of why the expectations for football coaches in general are just silly. Kelly's not here to regale you with his oratory. He's here to coach a football team.

I basically agree, but the thing is, I don't think what Stanford has done is actually that much greater than what ND has done. Stanford hasn't won a title. They haven't even competed for a title. Are we gonna clean house and run the risk of a bad hire so we can average one more win per year? It would be different if a coaching change would result in consistent title runs, but that won't be the case unless we drastically change admissions standards and recruiting practices. I'd love to see what Kelly could do with Nick Saban's roster.

Unless ND radically alters its approach to athletics, what Kelly is doing is about the best we can hope. Swarbrick is content with 8-10 win seasons. We could bring in someone new, someone energetic, etc., but he'll run up against the same thing Kelly has: an inability to bring in top-tier talent at every position of the team on a year-in, year-out basis. We often have premier talent in one or two positions, but never across the board, year after year. Look at the other strong academic programs: Stanford, Michigan, Cal, etc. Here and there, they may do a bit better than we do, but when it comes down to it, none of these places is going to compete for titles with Alabama, Ohio State, Clemson, etc. The pool of players for Bama, OSU is just so much larger, not to mention their coaches do things like grayshirt, or overlook criminality. At this point, I consider it a big deal if ND amasses 10 wins. Unless the university begins creating dumbed-down academic paths for players, sort of like UNC did, I don't see any coach coming here and winning a title. Not even Nick Saban.

No. To be honest, I don't really care. I think the discussion of whether Kelly gets fired or not is really missing the point. The main point is that, in this day and age, there's no one who stands a really good shot of restoring ND to glory. So, sure, bring someone in to replace Kelly, but I don't think he'll be doing any better. There are too many structural changes that have taken place in the last 25 years for ND to return to the top tiers of college football. I'm not even sure academics is the biggest hurdle here; the biggest hurdle might be that, at a time when schools like Oklahoma let domestic abusers play on their teams, ND does everything squeaky clean -- it is always going to discipline its players and hold them to the same standards as the regular student body. No other institution, apart from perhaps the service academies, does that. This is the real reason why there's a crisis every offseason, and the reason why we start every season trying to climb out of a hole.

I've responded in bold below.

Sure, the stimulus is a gimmick, but those are real gains for anyone who decides to cash out. Corrections of the market are always in play, but that doesn't mean the rise from the recession was an illusion. Especially 8 years later. What concerns me about Republicans is that they're either gunning to gut social security, or more mild ones want to let it die. A lot of elderly people, including my grandparents, would be in the poor house without it. And a lot of people in my generation have put a whole lot of money into that program for the sake of our parents and grandparents. I guess what I'm saying is, I can get on board with spending cuts, but I see it as really troubling when Republicans wanna gut social security so they can afford to slash taxes on the top 1% of earners. Unless you're in that category of earners, or you're a one-issue voter (on abortion, for example) I just don't understand the appeal of the Republican Party. And by the way, please don't mistake me for a fan of Democrats; I just happen to think their policies are better by comparison. When it comes down to it, I don't think anyone in Washington gives a crap about their constituents, and as appealing as Trump's economic rhetoric is, I think the guy is full of crap. I wish I were wrong.

To Trump supporters: Leaving the side the issues of identity politics, I'm seriously wondering: aren't you worried about his economic plans? My concerns boil down to my retirement. How do you deal with the following? -His tax cuts are overwhelmingly stacked in favor of millionaires. -He indicated he has no plan whatsoever to save social security. -If he guts Obamacare, that's fine, but it's not like that will bring the cost of healthcare any lower. The thing is, I pay into social security and a 401k. SS is going to vanish before I retire, but my 401k has done really well since Obama's stimulus. I think that kind of progress goes in reverse when Trump starts deregulating and giving big boosts to the super-rich.

Manti, and it's not close. Smith has been virtually perfect in executing his assignments and he has no obvious physical limitations. Manti, who lacked the same speed as Smith, nonetheless had a transcendent senior season. Seriously, he played out of his mind. The only reason there's even a question, in my opinion, is because Manti's physical limitations have been underscored in the NFL, where he's lost some of his luster. The weird thing about the catfishing scheme is that, although it ruined his image, whatever feelings of grief he experienced seemed to somehow elevate his level of play. Do you remember how well he played against a top-10 MSU squad in the days after Lenay "died"? Or the following week when ND beat Michigan?

I think the comments in this thread are really perceptive. The team needs the type of vocal leaders who will push them to their limits. A few observations: (1) Ideally, the vocal leaders are the guys who are making plays. This is the reason why Joe Schmidt, no matter how vocal he is, just does not have the same legitimacy as Manti Teo. (2) From all accounts, Malik Zaire was that type of player — he had leadership in spades, and even Will Fuller mentioned this at the outset of the season when comparing him to Golson. I think Deshone Kizer might be similar. (3) It would be good to have a leader like this on defense. I think that Diaco did fire up his troops and his players loved him. BVG is fiery, but I don't think he's galvanizing in the way Diaco was. Nor do I think any defensive players stand out. Defense is where we really need some leaders. Who's going to step up? Keivarae, if he returns? Max Redfield? Jarron Jones? I just don't know.

I've been so pumped for the return of Keivarae Russell together with Cole Luke that I somehow overlooked how thin ND is at CB after those two guys. Are there any legitimate CBs who can play behind those guys? I'm worried that our defense next year could look a lot like this past year's if there are any injuries.

You must not have watched this team. Golson is a baller, he is the Kobe Bryant of college football. Have you seen his 4th-and-forever conversions? What about Corey Robinson's TD to beat FSU? What about Max Redfield laying vicious hit after vicious hit? Not beating Navy by 50 doesn't mean the team doesn't have a killer instinct.