mspart

In 10 minutes, that is 60 tweets a minute, which is one tweet a second. I could do that but would not actually understand anything. So I guess it depends on if he means 10 minutes or 180 minutes or more when he says minutes. mspart

Again, this is the problem. Calling Biden's play as 4D chess is 1) not based in reality as he can't play 2D chess with any amount of skill and 2) this is saying that circumventing the Constitution is a good thing, which it is not. What is wrong with getting a bill through Congress and signing it? There is nothing inherently wrong with that. The idea of loan forgiveness stinks in my opinion but it could become law. The Supreme Court could not use Constitutional reasoning to take it down, I don't think they would take it up, other than to say Congress passes bills and if signed they become law. Just like everyone knew before. Trying to do this some sneaky way and calling that 4D chess is not what it is. You could call it dishonest, you could call it anti-democratic, you just call it just plain wrong. And you would be correct in all three cases. What it is not is 4D chess. mspart

Is this a thing average users do, read 600-6000 posts a day? Every day? That seems like more than a full time job worth of time. Not being on Twitter, I'm astounded. So it doesn't seem like much of a limit. 600 posts a day is 75 posts/hour for an 8 hour day. That's more than 1 per minute. 6000 posts a day is 750 posts/hour for 8 hour day. mspart

I just read Jonathan Turley's take on this and Constitutionally he is correct in my layman's' opinion. Granted I am no scholar on Constitutional Law, but I don't think you need to be to understand that the House controls the purse, Reps have to be 25 years old minimum, Senators 30 years old, and the President 35 years old. It really is fairly straight forward. I will highlight just a few key paragraphs of his to show my point. https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4076993-constitutional-cruelty-how-democrats-now-oppose-a-democratic-process-on-student-loans/ Constitutional cruelty: Democrats now oppose a democratic process on student loans by Jonathan Turley, Opinion Contributor - 07/01/23 10:30 AM ET “Disappointing and cruel.” Those words from Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) after the Supreme Court’s rejection of the Biden administration’s loan forgiveness program may say more than the opinion itself. The court’s “cruelty” was in supporting Congress’s core constitutional power of the purse. Schumer’s disappointment in having to address and vote on the forgiveness of hundreds of billions of dollars in loans speaks volumes about the collapse of our constitutional values. ... In his response to the court, Biden declared that “the hypocrisy is stunning” and that the court had “misinterpreted the Constitution.” However, during the last presidential campaign, Biden himself acknowledged that this effort would be unconstitutional. Chief Justice John Roberts even cited former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in the opinion for stating the obvious: “People think that the president of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness. He does not. He can postpone. He can delay. But he does not have that power. That has to be an act of Congress.” ... Biden was undeterred after that ruling and promised, “I will stop at nothing to find other ways to deliver [the] relief.” Perhaps, but the Constitution has once again stopped him from becoming a government unto himself. .... That brings us back to Schumer. James Madison designed a constitutional system with a frank understanding of the factional and petty impulses of politicians. Yet he believed that he had created a system of checks and balances that could rely on the institutional self-interest of members to jealously protect their powers under Article I. Madison believed that, despite party or ideological affiliations, “ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” In all of his study of the ancient Greek and Roman states and contemporary politics, Madison never encountered the likes of Schumer and his colleagues. Their ambition runs elsewhere, and they view the support of their authority to be an act of constitutional “cruelty.” They are calling on a president to turn them into institutional nonentities — legislators who engage in a type of empty performance art as the president governs alone. It is a curious position for those who have campaigned on protecting “democracy.” These same figures are now calling on a president to avoid presenting this major program to Congress because they know that the majority would oppose it. ... All of this is meant to avoid the one option left to the president — going to Congress. After all, the last thing you want in the defense of democracy is to have an outbreak of democratic process. ... What is left, to paraphrase Schumer, is a cruel joke. But the ultimate joke is on the American people. Half of their representatives in Congress are struggling to make themselves (and those they represent) entirely irrelevant at this key moment. That is a constitutional debt that should not be forgiven. This is an interesting opinion, because he is going at the D's for trying to go around the Constitution to get this thing done. These are the same D's that cried "we will lose our Democracy" if Rs are voted in. It is the height of hypocrisy to say that and now say that the right thing is to not do what democracy dictates. Go through Congress, get it appropriately funded, and then give it to the President to sign. Losing our Democracy is allowing the Executive to do what he/she wants whenever he/she wants. And that is what the D's are advocating for now along with throwing their own legislative power away. Turley is not taking sides I don't think, he is just showing how the whole thing was unconstitutional and those that are boldly declaring this is a miscarriage of justice, when it is so apparent it is not, are the Ds. He is shows that these Ds are not jealously holding onto their power but instead abdicating it. Maybe surprised is the wrong word. mspart

As of Jun 26, these are the numbers of entrants per https://www.flowrestling.org/articles/11072503-mens-freestyle-entries-for-the-budapest-ranking-series 57 - 23 entrants 61 - 14 entrants 65 - 23 entrants 70 - 15 entrants 74 - 19 entrants 79 - 14 entrants 86 - 28 entrants 92 - 11 entrants 97 - 20 entrants 125 - 19 entrants The number of entrants for non Olympic weights is fairly drastic. They have no more than 15 entrants averaging 13.5 entrants per weight. The Olympic weights have more participants with an average of 22 participants. For what it is worth. mspart

Thawing a brisket now for tomorrow. I got it from a friend who raised 2 cows at a time and at about 18-24 months had them butchered. We would split a 1/4 side with another family. Really good meat. He's no longer doing it, but it was a good deal for a number of years. It is rather a small cut but it should work for my wife and I. I'm really looking forward to tomorrow. mspart

One of the best bits in that movie. mspart

With the wild success in NCAA and International wrestling circles, Casey Cunningham would have been an obvious choice right? Who would be the most coveted middle weight assistant coach in the nation? I say Cunningham. But he was not a 4 timer or even a 3 timer. He was not internationally decorated but is an incredible coaching talent. It is not always the best of the best that make great coaches. mspart

I agree as well. JB has been there so long it was weird not seeing his name. Hoping for nothing but success for Chance. mspart

That sounds like the case. That one was about a restraining order that was not enforced by the local police. Apparently that is not required. So what is the purpose of a restraining order? 3 people are dead as a result. mspart

Yes, the debates should end before voting begins. This was not an issue before early voting became a thing. Vote on the day of the vote. That way you have all the info. mspart

Responses in RED. This is my last post on this little argument. You clearly are steeped your opinion as am I. I feel RFK Jr should debate Biden and you don't. I think that sums this up nicely. mspart

SCOTUS said they cannot use race as a determination criteria. Based on that, more Asians will get into Harvard if they continue to apply in the numbers they have in the past. mspart

My comments in Red. mspart

SCOTUS and the lower courts accepted they had standing. Perhaps going to one of these courts to get an understanding will be better than getting understand from one of the yokels (myself included) on this board. Let's accept that they had standing (just as SCOTUS and lower courts did), where did the 6-3 ruling go right, and where did it go wrong? Same for the dissent. My simple opinion is as I have explained. Using the Constitution, a President's executive order does not carry the weight of law. In financial matters all bills start in the House. There was no general student loan bill started in the House. It started on the President's desk. Therefore, not valid. Period. That's my very simple opinion of this. This is assuming that you can't use a law made specifically for military personnel to apply to the general public. I believe that is where the dissent and Biden get it wrong. mspart

Vak - I agree that students in general (99% of them) don't understand financing and that is the fault of our education system. That should be as important as the other MATH classes they have to take. The loan officer will answer questions but if you don't know what to ask, it all sounds rosy. Honestly I didn't learn until I had to take Engineering Finance. When I go in for a closing, I know exactly how much will be paying because I have calculated it on my own. It has saved me several thousand dollars in at least one transaction because the bank snuck in some fees I told them I would not pay. Everyone should be able to do this. I also agree with you that the universities over sell their degrees. That's on them. I hope the student loan discussion in the country is having people change their minds about going that direction or going to a stupid expensive university. Much better approach is CC and then university if a BS or BA is desired. Cheaper by far. mspart

I don't see that as an excuse. The resource officer is there to protect the kids. By abdicating that, who knows how many kids would still be alive if he had gone after the shooter. He may not have won that is true. But it is just as likely, with his training, he could have taken out the shooter before more damage was done. Even with a 9mm and a few well placed rounds. I agree with everything else you said. I just don't excuse the resource officer who was armed and there to stop this kind of thing. However, we never truly know what we will do in a similar circumstance until we are in it. I will give him that much I guess. mspart

Hi WKN, My understanding of the situation is that these colleges and universities want their student population to reflect the general population. So much White, so much Asian, so much Black, so much Indian, so much ..... So my comments were based on that. Harvard was not admitting Asians because their school population would be not in proportion to society in general. Asians would be over represented on campus. That was Harvard's argument to SCOTUS. So I was just pointing out that Stanford was not abiding by this, assuming this was their cause as well, and they need to bring in more white males on campus to get it to look like the rest of society. Obviously that means some other ethnic group was over represented. Title IX was also interpreted this way in some cases, that sports had to reflect the % of females and males on campus. This was one of 3 ways to comply. But what is not being said here is the fact that those in power do not think that Blacks, Hispanics, Indians can compete, that they can't measure up, so they need help. That is as much an indictment of our school system as it is of their racism. mspart

You better think so anyway. mspart

What I have not heard is the Scotus reasoning on this case. Was it solid? How about the dissent? Was it solid? I am not for loan forgiveness in general. You take out a loan and you pay it back, simple as that. You don't expect your neighbor to pay it off for you right? But more than that, this was attempted to be done by Presidential dictate, not by Congress. The law they were citing for loan forgiveness was strictly written for servicemen. How can that then be applied to general population? If Congress passes bills to the effect, and the President signs them into law, then it is law and we can not be happy but it was done right. This was not done right, and for that I am grateful SCOTUS stopped this. This is not government by a person, it is government by the people. The people (Congress) had no say in this. Why? Because it wouldn't have passed so Joe just said, well, I'll make it happen on my own. That is not the way to legislate laws. SCOTUS was correct, dissenters not. I agree with Husker, the fact that there were dissenters tells me they have no idea what the Constitution says. mspart

Vak, can you explain this more? How is a huge increase in tuition and fees not as predatory as the banks? mspart

Ok, got it. If a person has WR's seal of approval, legit candidate. Otherwise, he/she doesn't belong, not legit, go home not worth taking anyone's time. You can't take me seriously? That's your opinion. But for my part it is difficult to take someone serious that refuses to acknowledge that RFK Jr IS a candidate for the Democratic nomination. Here's a tip: When someone does all the paperwork necessary to become a presidential candidate, they are a legit presidential candidate. It doesn't matter if you approve or not. To your tip for me: I knew nothing about Clinton when he was running. Hick from AK is all I knew. Therefore, he was not a legitimate candidate if I go by your philosophy. Funny thing that he won eh? And he was not the front runner at the beginning because "who the heck was he". Here's the deal and the optics: Joe won't debate. RFK Jr will debate. Who's afraid of who? Why won't Joe debate, and the many follow up questions from that. I am not a RFK Jr acolyte. I would prefer Biden win the nomination. He's as weak as it gets. I think in the end he won't be the nominee. It will be like Lyndon Johnson, just not enough support. He's running on "Bidenomics" and 34% of the people polled approve of his handling of the economy. There is no there there. And no one even on the left wants Biden for a 2nd term. I'm guessing he will bow out and Newsome and some other Ds will take his place. I'll bet they would be happy and excited to debate RFK Jr and wipe the stage with him. I will be enjoying the 4th of July with my family. I wish you a Happy 4th of July as well. mspart

Thanks for posting the participants. Funny not seeing JB on the list. mspart

White men are 30% of the population according to https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/555503-new-study-finds-white-male-minority-rule/ Therefore, at these schools, white males should be 30% of the school population. But apparently they were 12% at Stanford. So by their own rules they need to get more white males in there to reflect the general population. Isn't that their criteria? They weren't even abiding by their own criteria. That is interesting. mspart

So what good is having armed personnel protecting a school if they won't protect a school? The prosecution must not have established his intent not to get involved is all I can figure. What does the future hold now? No one will get involved? That's the precedent set here. mspart